When scrutinizing even seemingly simple movements, such as reaching a tar-get with the hand, the sophistication and flexibility of human motor control becomes apparent. Dependent on current task demands, the brain optimizes movement precision [1], considers available feedback dependent on its signifi-cance and reliability [2], or optimize behavior even dependent on anticipated goal constraints
... [Show full abstract] [3]. Despite the apparent ease of controlling our own bodies, the necessary neural and computational bases are still not well understood. The recently proposed SURE REACH model 1 [4, 5] showed to be able to achieve comparable behavioral flexibility with a neural unsupervised learning model. While previous models usually imposed task constraints during learn-ing to resolve redundant control alternatives (mostly by mapping goals directly to actions situation-dependently [6, 7]), SURE REACH effectively encodes re-dundant alternatives. Given a current goal and additional task constraints, it is then possible to efficiently generate an implicit movement plan and control the movement to the goal using closed-loop control. The model differs in three key aspects from other neural models of motor learning and control. First, the model can be trained unsupervised effectively encoding redundant movement alternatives. Second, task specific constraints can be considered during movement generation without the need for further learn-ing or additional computational effort. Third, the model reflects physiological aspects of human motor control, such as the representations of goals and states with neural population codes, as well as psychological aspects, such as the in-herent necessity to prepare movements before movement execution. However, by now, the model has only been applied to a kinematic arm limit-ing its validity. Thus, we are currently addressing how the SURE REACH model can be extended to control a redundant, dynamic arm by integrating an inter-dependent dynamics controller [8].