Willemijn D. Schot

Robust movement segmentation by combining multiple sources of information

One of the first steps in analyzing kinematic data is determining the beginning and end of movement segments. This is often done automatically on the basis of one parameter (such as a speed minimum) and subsequently corrections are made if visual inspection of other kinematic parameters suggests that the obtained value was incorrect. We argue that in many cases it is impossible to find a satisfactory endpoint for all possible movement segments within an experiment using a single parameter because the intuition about the end of a segment is based on multiple criteria. Therefore by taking the maximum of an objective function based on multiple sources of information one can find the best possible time point to call the endpoint. We will demonstrate that this Multiple Sources of Information method (MSI-method) for finding endpoints performs better than conventional methods and that it is robust against arbitrary choices made by the researcher. Using it reduces the chance of introducing biases and eliminates the need for subjective corrections. Although we will take goal directed upper limb motion as an example throughout this paper, it should be stressed that the method could be applied to a wide variety of movements.

Changes in corticospinal excitability and the direction of evoked movements during motor preparation: A TMS study

BackgroundPreparation of the direction of a forthcoming movement has a particularly strong influence on both reaction times and neuronal activity in the primate motor cortex. Here, we aimed to find direct neurophysiologic evidence for the preparation of movement direction in humans. We used single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) to evoke isolated thumb-movements, of which the direction can be modulated experimentally, for example by training or by motor tasks. Sixteen healthy subjects performed brisk concentric voluntary thumb movements during a reaction time task in which the required movement direction was precued. We assessed whether preparation for the thumb movement lead to changes in the direction of TMS-evoked movements and to changes in amplitudes of motor-evoked potentials (MEPs) from the hand muscles.ResultsWhen the required movement direction was precued early in the preparatory interval, reaction times were 50 ms faster than when precued at the end of the preparatory interval. Over time, the direction of the TMS-evoked thumb movements became increasingly variable, but it did not turn towards the precued direction. MEPs from the thumb muscle (agonist) were differentially modulated by the direction of the precue, but only in the late phase of the preparatory interval and thereafter. MEPs from the index finger muscle did not depend on the precued direction and progressively decreased during the preparatory interval.ConclusionOur data show that the human corticospinal movement representation undergoes progressive changes during motor preparation. These changes are accompanied by inhibitory changes in corticospinal excitability, which are muscle specific and depend on the prepared movement direction. This inhibition might indicate a corticospinal braking mechanism that counteracts any preparatory motor activation.

Posture of the arm when grasping spheres to place them elsewhere.

Despite the infinitely many ways to grasp a spherical object, regularities have been observed in the posture of the arm and the grasp orientation. In the present study, we set out to determine the factors that predict the grasp orientation and the final joint angles of reach-to-grasp movements. Subjects made reach-to-grasp movements toward a sphere to pick it up and place it at an indicated location. We varied the position of the sphere and the starting and placing positions. Multiple regression analysis showed that the sphere’s azimuth from the subject was the best predictor of grasp orientation, although there were also smaller but reliable contributions of distance, starting position, and perhaps even placing position. The sphere’s initial distance from the subject was the best predictor of the final elbow angle and shoulder elevation. A combination of the sphere’s azimuth and distance from the subject was required to predict shoulder angle, trunk-head rotation, and lateral head position. The starting position best predicted the final wrist angle and sagittal head position. We conclude that the final posture of the arm when grasping a sphere to place it elsewhere is determined to a larger extend by the initial position of the object than by effects of starting and placing position.

Alignment to natural and imposed mismatches between the senses

Does the nervous system continuously realign the senses so that objects are seen and felt in the same place? Conflicting answers to this question have been given. Research imposing a sensory mismatch has provided evidence that the nervous system realigns the senses to reduce the mismatch. Other studies have shown that when subjects point with the unseen hand to visual targets, their end points show visual-proprioceptive biases that do not disappear after episodes of visual feedback. These biases are indicative of intersensory mismatches that the nervous system does not align for. Here, we directly compare how the nervous system deals with natural and imposed mismatches. Subjects moved a hand-held cube to virtual cubes appearing at pseudorandom locations in three-dimensional space. We alternated blocks in which subjects moved without visual feedback of the hand with feedback blocks in which we rendered a cube representing the hand-held cube. In feedback blocks, we rotated the visual feedback by 5° relative to the subjects head, creating an imposed mismatch between vision and proprioception on top of any natural mismatches. Realignment occurred quickly but was incomplete. We found more realignment to imposed mismatches than to natural mismatches. We propose that this difference is related to the way in which the visual information changed when subjects entered the experiment: the imposed mismatches were different from the mismatch in daily life, so alignment started from scratch, whereas the natural mismatches were not imposed by the experimenter, so subjects are likely to have entered the experiment partly aligned.

Does planning a different trajectory influence the choice of grasping points

We examined whether the movement path is considered when selecting the positions at which the digits will contact the object’s surface (grasping points). Subjects grasped objects of different heights but with the same radius at various locations on a table. At some locations, one digit crossed to the side of the object opposite of where it started. In doing so, it moved over a short object whereas it curved around a tall object. This resulted in very different paths for different objects. Importantly, the selection of grasping points was unaffected. That subjects do not appear to consider the path when selecting grasping points suggests that the grasping points are selected before planning the movements towards those points.

Simultaneous adaptation of the thumb and index finger of the same hand to opposite prism displacements.

It only takes a few goal-directed hand movements to adapt ones movements to a prism-induced displacement of the visual scene. Adaptation to the displacement leads to errors in the opposite direction from the initial displacement when the prisms are removed. Such aftereffects are thought to arise from some form of spatial realignment of the senses or from motor learning. Here, we show that humans can simultaneously adapt the movements of the thumb and index finger of the same hand to opposing visual displacements. Neither the felt position of the hand nor the visually perceived direction can change in two opposite directions at the same time, ruling out an explanation based on realignment of the senses. It is conceivable that one could learn to adjust the movements differently for the two digits despite the fact that both adjustments would involve the same hand, but such motor learning should not transfer to matching the position of the unseen digit. As transfer was observed when visually matching the position of the unseen digit, motor learning cannot explain all of the results. An explanation involving supplementing proprioception with a memory-based visual estimate of the position of each unseen digit could explain all of the results. Irrespective of the mechanism, we can conclude that it is possible to adapt the perceived locations of the unseen digits without influencing proprioception.

Grasping and hitting moving objects

Some experimental evidence suggests that grasping should be regarded as independent control of the thumb and the index finger (digit control hypothesis). To investigate this further, we compared how the tips of the thumb and the index finger moved in space when grasping spheres to how they moved when they were hitting the sphere using only one digit. In order to make the tasks comparable, we designed the experiment in such a way that subjects contacted the spheres in about the same way in the hitting task as when grasping it. According to the digit control hypothesis, the two tasks should yield similar digit trajectories in space. People hit and grasped stationary and moving spheres. We compared the similarity of the digits’ trajectories across the two tasks by evaluating the time courses of the paths of the average of the thumb and the index finger. These paths were more similar across tasks than across sphere motion, supporting the notion that grasping is not controlled fundamentally differently than hitting.

Unusual prism adaptation reveals how grasping is controlled

There are three main theories on how human grasping movements are controlled. Two of them state that grip aperture and the movement of the hand are controlled. They differ in whether the wrist or the thumb of the hand is controlled. We have proposed a third theory, which states that grasping is a combination of two goal-directed single-digit movements, each directed at a specific position on the object. In this study, we test predictions based on each of the theories by examining the transfer of prism adaptation during single-digit pointing movements to grasping movements. We show that adaptation acquired during single-digit movements transfers to the hand opening when subsequently grasping objects, leaving the movement of the hand unaffected. Our results provide strong evidence for our theory that grasping with the thumb and index finger is based on a combination of two goal-directed single-digit movements.