skip to main content
Explore Scholarly Publications and Datasets in the NSF-PAR

Title: Variability in locomotor dynamics reveals the critical role of feedback in task control
People come in different shapes and sizes, but most will perform similarly well if asked to complete a task requiring fine manual dexterity – such as holding a pen or picking up a single grape. How can different individuals, with different sized hands and muscles, produce such similar movements? One explanation is that an individual’s brain and nervous system become precisely tuned to mechanics of the body’s muscles and skeleton. An alternative explanation is that brain and nervous system use a more “robust” control policy that can compensate for differences in the body by relying on feedback from the senses to guide the movements. To distinguish between these two explanations, Uyanik et al. turned to weakly electric freshwater fish known as glass knifefish. These fish seek refuge within root systems, reed grass and among other objects in the water. They swim backwards and forwards to stay hidden despite constantly changing currents. Each fish shuttles back and forth by moving a long ribbon-like fin on the underside of its body. Uyanik et al. measured the movements of the ribbon fin under controlled conditions in the laboratory, and then used the data to create computer models of the brain and body of more » each fish. The models of each fish’s brain and body were quite different. To study how the brain interacts with the body, Uyanik et al. then conducted experiments reminiscent of those described in the story of Frankenstein and transplanted the brain from each computer model into the body of different model fish. These “brain swaps” had almost no effect on the model’s simulated swimming behavior. Instead, these “Frankenfish” used sensory feedback to compensate for any mismatch between their brain and body. This suggests that, for some behaviors, an animal’s brain does not need to be precisely tuned to the specific characteristics of its body. Instead, robust control of movement relies on many seemingly redundant systems that provide sensory feedback. This has implications for the field of robotics. It further suggests that when designing robots, engineers should prioritize enabling the robots to use sensory feedback to cope with unexpected events, a well-known idea in control engineering. « less
Authors:
; ; ; ; ; ;
Award ID(s):
1557895
Publication Date:
NSF-PAR ID:
10230435
Journal Name:
eLife
Volume:
9
ISSN:
2050-084X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. ; ; ; ( , Journal of Neurophysiology)
    Limb dominance is evident in many daily activities, leading to the prominent idea that each hemisphere of the brain specializes in controlling different aspects of movement. Past studies suggest that the dominant arm is primarily controlled via an internal model of limb dynamics that enables the nervous system to produce efficient movements. In contrast, the nondominant arm may be primarily controlled via impedance mechanisms that rely on the strong modulation of sensory feedback from individual joints to control limb posture. We tested whether such differences are evident in behavioral responses and stretch reflexes following sudden displacement of the arm during posture control. Experiment 1 applied specific combinations of elbow-shoulder torque perturbations (the same for all participants). Peak joint displacements, return times, end point accuracy, and the directional tuning and amplitude of stretch reflexes in nearly all muscles were not statistically different between the two arms. Experiment 2 induced specific combinations of joint motion (the same for all participants). Again, peak joint displacements, return times, end point accuracy, and the directional tuning and amplitude of stretch reflexes in nearly all muscles did not differ statistically when countering the imposed loads with each arm. Moderate to strong correlations were found between stretchmore »reflexes and behavioral responses to the perturbations with the two arms across both experiments. Collectively, the results do not support the idea that the dominant arm specializes in exploiting internal models and the nondominant arm in impedance control by increasing reflex gains to counter sudden loads imposed on the arms during posture control. NEW & NOTEWORTHY A prominent hypothesis is that the nervous system controls the dominant arm through predictive internal models and the nondominant arm through impedance mechanisms. We tested whether stretch reflexes of muscles in the two arms also display such specialization during posture control. Nearly all behavioral responses and stretch reflexes did not differ statistically but were strongly correlated between the arms. The results indicate individual signatures of feedback control that are common for the two arms.« less
  2. ( , Integrative and Comparative Biology)
    Abstract

    Many studies of the flow of energy between the body, muscles, and elastic elements highlight advantages of the storage and recovery of elastic energy. The spring-like action of structures associated with muscles allows for movements that are less costly, more powerful and safer than would be possible with contractile elements alone. But these actions also present challenges that might not be present if the pattern of energy flow were simpler, for example, if power were always applied directly from muscle to motions of the body. Muscle is under the direct control of the nervous system, and precise modulation of activity can allow for finely controlled displacement and force. Elastic structures deform under load in a predictable way, but are not under direct control, thus both displacement and the flow of energy act at the mercy of the mechanical interaction of muscle and forces associated with movement. Studies on isolated muscle-tendon units highlight the challenges of controlling such systems. A carefully tuned activation pattern is necessary for effective cycling of energy between tendon and the environment; most activation patterns lead to futile cycling of energy between tendon and muscle. In power-amplified systems, “elastic backfire” sometimes occurs, where energy loaded intomore »tendon acts to lengthen active muscles, rather than accelerate the body. Classic models of proprioception that rely on muscle spindle organs for sensing muscle and joint displacement illustrate how elastic structures might influence sensory feedback by decoupling joint movement from muscle fiber displacements. The significance of the complex flow of energy between muscles, elastic elements and the body for neuromotor control is worth exploring.

    « less
  3. ; ; ( , eLife)
    Most animals – including birds, fish and mammals – have symmetrical left and right sides, and are known as bilaterians. During early life, the embryos of animals in this group develop three distinct layers of cells: the ectoderm (outer layer), the endoderm (inner layer), and the mesoderm (middle layer). These layers then go on to form the animal’s tissues and organs. The ectoderm produces external tissues, such as the skin and the nervous system; the endoderm forms internal tissues, like the gut; and the mesoderm creates all tissues in between, like muscles and blood. Another, smaller group of animals, called cnidarians, do not have left and right sides. Instead, they have a ‘radial symmetry’, meaning they have multiple identical parts arranged in a circle. These animals – which include corals, jellyfish and sea anemones – only develop two distinct layers of cells, equivalent to the outer and inner layers of bilaterians. Cnidarians evolved before bilaterians, but their genetic material is equally complex. So why did these two groups evolve to have different layers of cells? And how exactly do animal embryos develop these distinct layers? To address these questions, Salinas-Saavedra et al. studied embryos of the sea anemone Nematostella vectensis.more »Molecules called Par-proteins play an important role in controlling how cells behave and attach to one another (and therefore how they form layers). So, using a technique called immunohistochemistry to look inside cells, Salinas-Saavedra et al. examined these proteins in the two layers of cells in sea anemone embryos. The experiments found that in the sea anemones, Par-proteins are arranged differently in cells that form the ‘skin’ compared to cells that form the ‘gut’. In other words, cells in the outer layer attach to one another in a different way than cells in the inner layer, where the Par-proteins are degraded by ‘mesodermal’ genes. The findings also show that these sea anemones have all they need to form a third middle layer of cells. Like bilaterians, they could potentially move cells in and out of sheets that line surfaces inside the body – but they do not naturally do this. Understanding how animals form different layers of cells is important for scientists studying evolution and the development of embryos. However, it also has wider applications. For instance, some cells involved in developing the mesoderm are also involved in forming tumors. Future research in this area could help scientists learn more about how cancer-like cells form in animals.« less
  4. ; ; ; ; ; ( , eLife)
    Understanding the intricacies of the brain often requires spotting and tracking specific neurons over time and across different individuals. For instance, scientists may need to precisely monitor the activity of one neuron even as the brain moves and deforms; or they may want to find universal patterns by comparing signals from the same neuron across different individuals. Both tasks require matching which neuron is which in different images and amongst a constellation of cells. This is theoretically possible in certain ‘model’ animals where every single neuron is known and carefully mapped out. Still, it remains challenging: neurons move relative to one another as the animal changes posture, and the position of a cell is also slightly different between individuals. Sophisticated computer algorithms are increasingly used to tackle this problem, but they are far too slow to track neural signals as real-time experiments unfold. To address this issue, Yu et al. designed a new algorithm based on the Transformer, an artificial neural network originally used to spot relationships between words in sentences. To learn relationships between neurons, the algorithm was fed hundreds of thousands of ‘semi-synthetic’ examples of constellations of neurons. Instead of painfully collated actual experimental data, these datasets weremore »created by a simulator based on a few simple measurements. Testing the new algorithm on the tiny worm Caenorhabditis elegans revealed that it was faster and more accurate, finding corresponding neurons in about 10ms. The work by Yu et al. demonstrates the power of using simulations rather than experimental data to train artificial networks. The resulting algorithm can be used immediately to help study how the brain of C. elegans makes decisions or controls movements. Ultimately, this research could allow brain-machine interfaces to be developed.« less
  5. ; ; ; ; ( , Scientific Reports)
    Abstract

    Existing models of human walking use low-level reflexes or neural oscillators to generate movement. While appropriate to generate the stable, rhythmic movement patterns of steady-state walking, these models lack the ability to change their movement patterns or spontaneously generate new movements in the specific, goal-directed way characteristic of voluntary movements. Here we present a neuromuscular model of human locomotion that bridges this gap and combines the ability to execute goal directed movements with the generation of stable, rhythmic movement patterns that are required for robust locomotion. The model represents goals for voluntary movements of the swing leg on the task level of swing leg joint kinematics. Smooth movements plans towards the goal configuration are generated on the task level and transformed into descending motor commands that execute the planned movements, using internal models. The movement goals and plans are updated in real time based on sensory feedback and task constraints. On the spinal level, the descending commands during the swing phase are integrated with a generic stretch reflex for each muscle. Stance leg control solely relies on dedicated spinal reflex pathways. Spinal reflexes stimulate Hill-type muscles that actuate a biomechanical model with eight internal joints and six free-body degreesmore »of freedom. The model is able to generate voluntary, goal-directed reaching movements with the swing leg and combine multiple movements in a rhythmic sequence. During walking, the swing leg is moved in a goal-directed manner to a target that is updated in real-time based on sensory feedback to maintain upright balance, while the stance leg is stabilized by low-level reflexes and a behavioral organization switching between swing and stance control for each leg. With this combination of reflex-based stance leg and voluntary, goal-directed control of the swing leg, the model controller generates rhythmic, stable walking patterns in which the swing leg movement can be flexibly updated in real-time to step over or around obstacles.

    « less
  • Citation Formats
  • MLA
  • APA
  • Chicago
  • BibTeX
  • Save / Share this Record
  • Send to Email