Motor invariants in action execution and perception

Invariant representations in abstract concept grounding - the physical world in grounded cognition

Grounded cognition states that mental representations of concepts consist of experiential aspects. For example, the concept "cup" consists of the sensorimotor experiences from interactions with cups. Typical modalities in which concepts are grounded are: The sensorimotor system (including interoception), emotion, action, language, and social aspects. Here, we argue that this list should be expanded to include physical invariants (unchanging features of physical motion; e.g., gravity, momentum, friction). Research on physical reasoning consistently demonstrates that physical invariants are represented as fundamentally as other grounding substrates, and therefore should qualify. We assess several theories of concept representation (simulation, conceptual metaphor, conceptual spaces, predictive processing) and their positions on physical invariants. We find that the classic grounded cognition theories, simulation and conceptual metaphor theory, have not considered physical invariants, while conceptual spaces and predictive processing have. We conclude that physical invariants should be included into grounded cognition theories, and that the core mechanisms of simulation and conceptual metaphor theory are well suited to do this. Furthermore, conceptual spaces and predictive processing are very promising and should also be integrated with grounded cognition in the future.

Enhanced motor noise in an autism subtype with poor motor skills

BACKGROUND

Motor difficulties are common in many, but not all, autistic individuals. These difficulties can co-occur with other problems, such as delays in language, intellectual, and adaptive functioning. Biological mechanisms underpinning such difficulties are less well understood. Poor motor skills tend to be more common in individuals carrying highly penetrant rare genetic mutations. Such mechanisms may have downstream consequences of altering neurophysiological excitation-inhibition balance and lead to enhanced behavioral motor noise.

METHODS

This study combined publicly available and in-house datasets of autistic (n = 156), typically-developing (TD, n = 149), and developmental coordination disorder (DCD, n = 23) children (age 3-16 years). Autism motor subtypes were identified based on patterns of motor abilities measured from the Movement Assessment Battery for Children 2nd edition. Stability-based relative clustering validation was used to identify autism motor subtypes and evaluate generalization accuracy in held-out data. Autism motor subtypes were tested for differences in motor noise, operationalized as the degree of dissimilarity between repeated motor kinematic trajectories recorded during a simple reach-to-drop task.

RESULTS

Relatively 'high' (n = 87) versus 'low' (n = 69) autism motor subtypes could be detected and which generalize with 89% accuracy in held-out data. The relatively 'low' subtype was lower in general intellectual ability and older at age of independent walking, but did not differ in age at first words or autistic traits or symptomatology. Motor noise was considerably higher in the 'low' subtype compared to 'high' (Cohen's d = 0.77) or TD children (Cohen's d = 0.85), but similar between autism 'high' and TD children (Cohen's d = 0.08). Enhanced motor noise in the 'low' subtype was also most pronounced during the feedforward phase of reaching actions.

LIMITATIONS

The sample size of this work is limited. Future work in larger samples along with independent replication is important. Motor noise was measured only on one specific motor task. Thus, a more comprehensive assessment of motor noise on many other motor tasks is needed.

CONCLUSIONS

Autism can be split into at least two discrete motor subtypes that are characterized by differing levels of motor noise. This suggests that autism motor subtypes may be underpinned by different biological mechanisms.

The cerebellum and the Mirror Neuron System: A matter of inhibition? From neurophysiological evidence to neuromodulatory implications. A narrative review

Mirror neurons show activity during both the execution (AE) and observation of actions (AO). The Mirror Neuron System (MNS) could be involved during motor imagery (MI) as well. Extensive research suggests that the cerebellum is interconnected with the MNS and may be critically involved in its activities. We gathered evidence on the cerebellum's role in MNS functions, both theoretically and experimentally. Evidence shows that the cerebellum plays a major role during AO and MI and that its lesions impair MNS functions likely because, by modulating the activity of cortical inhibitory interneurons with mirror properties, the cerebellum may contribute to visuomotor matching, which is fundamental for shaping mirror properties. Indeed, the cerebellum may strengthen sensory-motor patterns that minimise the discrepancy between predicted and actual outcome, both during AE and AO. Furthermore, through its connections with the hippocampus, the cerebellum might be involved in internal simulations of motor programs during MI. Finally, as cerebellar neuromodulation might improve its impact on MNS activity, we explored its potential neurophysiological and neurorehabilitation implications.

Excitatory/inhibitory motor balance reflects individual differences during joint action coordination

Joint action (JA) is a continuous process of motor co-regulation based on the integration of contextual (top-down) and kinematic (bottom-up) cues from partners. The fine equilibrium between excitation and inhibition in sensorimotor circuits is, thus, central to such a dynamic process of action selection and execution. In a bimanual task adapted to become a unimanual JA task, the participant held a bottle (JA), while a confederate had to reach and unscrew either that bottle or another stabilized by a mechanical clamp (No_JA). Prior knowledge was manipulated in each trial such that the participant knew (K) or not (No_K) the target bottle in advance. Online transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) was administered at action-relevant landmarks to explore corticospinal excitability (CSE) and inhibition (cortical silent period [cSP]). CSE was modulated early on before the action started if prior information was available. In contrast, cSP modulation emerged later during the reaching action, regardless of prior information. These two indexes could thus reflect the concurrent elaboration of contextual priors (top-down) and the online sampling of partner's kinematic cues (bottom-up). Furthermore, participants selected either one of two possible behavioural strategies, preferring early or late force exertion on the bottle. One translates into a reduced risk of motor coordination failure and the other into reduced metabolic expenditure. Each strategy was characterised by a specific excitatory/inhibitory profile. In conclusion, the study of excitatory/inhibitory balance paves the way for the neurophysiological determination of individual differences in the combination of top-down and bottom-up processing during JA coordination.

Submovement interpersonal coupling is associated to audio-motor coordination performance

Acting in concert with others, a key aspect of our social life, requires behavioral coordination between persons on multiple timescales. When zooming in on the kinematic properties of movements, it appears that small speed fluctuations, called submovements, are embedded within otherwise smooth end-point trajectories. Submovements, by occurring at a faster timescale than that of movements, offer a novel window upon the functional relationship between distinct motor timescales. In this regard, it has previously been shown that when partners visually synchronize their movements, they also coordinate the timing of their submovement by following an alternated pattern. However, it remains unclear whether the mechanisms behind submovement coordination are domain-general or specific to the visual modality, and whether they have relevance for interpersonal coordination also at the scale of whole movements. In a series of solo and dyadic tasks, we show that submovements are also present and coordinated across partners when sensorimotor interactions are mediated by auditory feedback only. Importantly, the accuracy of task-instructed interpersonal coordination at the movement level correlates with the strength of submovement coordination. These results demonstrate that submovement coordination is a potentially fundamental mechanism that participates in interpersonal motor coordination regardless of the sensory domain mediating the interaction.

The microstructure of intra- and interpersonal coordination

Movements are naturally composed of submovements, i.e. recurrent speed pulses (2-3 Hz), possibly reflecting intermittent feedback-based motor adjustments. In visuomotor (unimanual) synchronization tasks, partners alternate submovements over time, indicating mutual coregulation. However, it is unclear whether submovement coordination is organized differently between and within individuals. Indeed, different types of information may be variably exploited for intrapersonal and interpersonal coordination. Participants performed a series of bimanual tasks alone or in pairs, with or without visual feedback (solo task only). We analysed the relative timing of submovements between their own hands or between their own hands and those of their partner. Distinct coordinative structures emerged at the submovement level depending on the relevance of visual feedback. Specifically, the relative timing of submovements (between partners/effectors) shifts from alternation to simultaneity and a mixture of both when coordination is achieved using vision (interpersonal), proprioception/efference-copy only (intrapersonal, without vision) or all information sources (intrapersonal, with vision), respectively. These results suggest that submovement coordination represents a behavioural proxy for the adaptive weighting of different sources of information within action-perception loops. In sum, the microstructure of movement reveals common principles governing the dynamics of sensorimotor control to achieve both intra- and interpersonal coordination.