Equilibrium-point hypothesis, minimum effort control strategy and the triphasic muscle activation pattern

What does body configuration in microgravity tell us about the contribution of intra- and extrapersonal frames of reference for motor control?

The authors report that the reorganization of body configuration during weightlessness is based on an intrapersonal frame of reference such as the configuration of the support surface and the position of the body's center of gravity. These results stress the importance of “knowledge” of the state of internal geometric structures, which cannot be directly signalled by specific receptors responsible for direct dialogue with the physical external world.

Reciprocal and coactivation commands are not sufficient to describe muscle activation patterns

Recent results have shown that the relative activation of muscles is different for isometric contractions and for movements. These results exclude an explanation of muscle activation patterns by a combination ofreciprocal and coactivation commands. These results also indicate that joint stiffness is not uniquely determined and that it may be different for isometric contractions and movements.

Frames of reference interact and are task-dependent

The problem for the CNS in any particular movement task is to coordinate the various frames of reference appropriate to the task. Control variables are determined by this coordination. The coordination problem varies greatly from task to task, and so no single set of control variables is likely to account for a broad range of movement tasks.

The λ model for motor control: More than meets the eye

Understanding of the λ model has greatly increased in recent years as evidenced by most of the commentaries. Some commentators underscored the potential of the model to integrate aspects of different sensorimotor systems in the production of movement. Other commentators focused on not-yet-fully-developed parts of the model. A few persisted in misunderstanding some of its basic concepts, and on these grounds they reject it. In responding to commentaries we continue to elaborate on some fundamental points of the model, especially control variables, the idea of movement production by shifting the positional frame of reference and the hypothesis of biomechanical correspondence in motor control. We also continue to develop our ideas on the intrinsic generation of the frame of reference associated with external space and utilized for the control of arm movement and locomotion. The dynamic principles underlying the model are discussed in light of the dynamical systems approach.

Grip force adjustments during rapid hand movements suggest that detailed movement kinematics are predicted

The λ model suggests that detailed kinematics arise from changes in control variables and need not be explicitly planned. However, we have shown that when moving a grasped object, grip force is precisely modulated in phase with acceleration-dependent inertial load. This suggests that the motor system can predict detailed kinematics. This prediction may be based on a forward model of the dynamics of the loaded limb.

Let us accept a “controlled trade-off” model of motor control

The trade-off between force and length of muscle as adjusted by neural signals is a critical fact in the dynamics of motor control. Whether we call it “length-tension effect,” “feedback-like,” “invariant condition,” or “spring-like” is unimportant. We must not let semantics or details of representation obscure the basic physics of effects introduced by this trade-off in muscle.

Equilibrium-point control? Yes! Deterministic mechanisms of control? No!

The equilibrium-point hypothesis (the λ-model) is superior to all other models of single-joint control and provides deep insights into the mechanisms of control of multi-joint movements. Attempts at associating control variables with neurophysiological variables look confusing rather than promising. Probabilistic mechanisms may play an important role in movement generation in redundant systems.

The unobservability of central commands: Why testing hypotheses is so difficult

The experiments Feldman and Levin suggest do not definitively test their proposed solution to the problem of selecting muscle activations. Their test of the movement directions that elicit EMG activity can be interpreted without regard to the form of the central commands, and their fast elbow flexion test is based on a forward computation that obscures the insensitivity of the predicted trajectory to the details of the putative commands.

Biological variability and control of movements via δλ

Three issues related to Feldman and Levin's treatment of biological variability are discussed. We question the usefulness of the indirect component of δλ. We suggest that trade-offs between speed and accuracy in aimed movements support identification of δλ, rather than λ, as a control variable. We take issue with the authors' proposal for resolving redundancy in multi-joint movements, given recent data.

A few reasons why psychologlsts can adhere to Feldman and Levin's model

We emphasize the relevance to cognitive psychology of Feldman and Levin's theoretical position. Traditional views of motor control have failed to clearly separate “production control” at the level of motor command, based on task-independent CV (control variables), from intentional “product control” based on task-dependent parameters. Because F&L's approach concentrates on the first process (trajectory formation), it can distinguish the product control stage.

Levers to generate movement

The following questions are discussed: (1) Who determines the nature of “control variables”? (2) Is the “positional monopoly” healthy? (3) Does a descending command alter reflex threshold alone without eoncomitantly altering stiffness? (4) How does the CNS deal with history-dependent effects? (5) Should we abandon the idea that the CNS controls classical Newtonian variables such as muscle length?

Kinematic invariances and body schema

Generalizing the notion that muscles are positional frames of reference, a high-dimensional muscle space is defined for multi-muscle systems with an embedded low-dimensional motor manifold of functional articulators. A central representation of such a manifold is proposed as computational body schema. The example of the jaw-tongue system is presented, discussing the relation of functional articulators with kinematic invariances and control problems.

Tendon elasticity and positional control

The spring-like behaviour of a joint following a sudden change of torque is partly a result of the elastic properties of tendons. A large fall in a muscle with a long tendon may be accompanied by tendon recoil causing joint movements as large as 20°.

Command invariants and the frame of reference for human movement

We describe a solution to the redundancy problem related to that proposed in Feldman & Levin's target article. We suggest that the system may use a fixed mapping between commands organized at the level of degrees of freedom and commands to individual muscles. This proposal eliminates the need to maintain an explicit representation of musculoskeletalgeometry in planning movements.

Frameworks on shifting sands

Feldman and Levin present a model for movement control in which the system is said to seek equilibrium points, active movement being produced by shifting frames of reference in space. It is argued that whatever merit this model might have is limited to an understanding of “the how” and not “the why” we move. In this way the authors seem to be forced into a dualistic position leaving the upper level of the proposed control hierarchy “floating.”

Conservative or nonconservative control schemes

The conservative strategy proposed by the authors suggests a solution of the degrees-of-freedom problem of the controller. However, several simple motor control tasks cannot be explained by this strategy. A nonconservative strategy, in which more parameters of the control signal vary, can account for these simple motor tasks. However, the simplicity that distinguishes the proposed model from many others is lost.

The origin and use of positional frames of reference in motor control

A hypothesis about sensorimotor integration (the λ model) is described and applied to movement control and kinesthesia. The central idea is that the nervous system organizes positional frames of reference for the sensorimotor apparatus and produces active movements by shifting the frames in terms of spatial coordinates. Kinematic and electromyographic patterns are not programmed, but emerge from the dynamic interaction among the system s components, including external forces within the designated frame of reference. Motoneuronal threshold properties and proprioceptive inputs to motoneurons may be cardinal components of the physiological mechanism that produces positional frames of reference. The hypothesis that intentional movements are produced by shifting the frame of reference is extended to multi-muscle and multi-degrees-of-freedom systems with a solution of the redundancy problem that allows the control of a joint alone or in combination with other joints to produce any desired limb configuration and movement trajectory. The model also implies that for each motor behavior, the nervous system uses a strategy that minimizes the number of changeable control variables and keeps the parameters of these changes invariant. Examples are provided of simulated kinematic and electromyographic signals from single- and multi-joint arm movements produced by suggested patterns of control variables. Empirical support is provided and additional tests of the model are suggested. The model is contrasted with others based on the ideas of programming of motoneuronal activity, muscle forces, stiffness, or movement kinematics.

Origins of origins of motor control

Examination of infant spontaneous and goal-directed arm movements supports Feldman and Levin's hypothesis of a functional hierarchy. Early infant movements are dominated by biomechanical and dynamic factors without external frames of reference. Development involves not only learning to generate these frames of reference, but also protecting the higher-level goal of the movement from internal and external perturbations.

Spatial frames for motor control would be commensurate with spatial frames for vision and proprioception, but what about control of energy flows?

The model identifies a spatial coordinate frame within which the sensorimotor apparatus produces movement. Its spatial nature simplifies its coupling with spatial reference frames used concurrently by vision and proprioception. While the positional reference frame addresses the performance of spatial tasks, it seems to have little to say about movements involving energy expenditure as the principle component of the task.

Interneurons as backseat drivers and the elusive control variable

It is proposed here that the spinal network of proprioceptive feedback from length and force receptors constitutes the mechanism underlying the coordination of activation thresholds for muscles acting about the same and neighboring joints. For the most part, these circuits come between motoneurons and supraspinal signals, invalidating the idea that the activation thresholds constitute control variables for the motor system.

Two joints are more than twice one joint

An alternative multi-joint extension to the lambda model is proposed. According to this extension, the activity of a muscle depends not only on the difference between lambda and length of that muscle, but also on the difference between lambda and length of other muscles. This 2-D extension can describe more neurophysiological experiments than the extension proposed in the target article.

Control parameters, equilibria, and coordination dynamics

Important similarities exist between the dynamical concepts implicit in Feldman & Levin's extended λ model and those basic to a dynamical systems approach. We argue that careful application of the key concepts of control and order parameters, equilibria, and stability, can relate known facts of neuromuscular processes to the observables of functional, task-specific behavior.

Shifting frames of reference but the same old point of view

Models of central control variables (CVs) that are expressed in positional reference frames and rely on proprioception as the dominant specifier of muscle activation patterns have not yet been shown to be adequate for the description of fast, voluntary movement, even of single joints. An alternative model with illustrative data is proposed.

Inverse kinematic problem: Solutions by pseudoinversion, inversion and no-inversion

Kinematic properties of reaching movements reflect constraints imposed on the joint angles. Contemporary models present solutions to the redundancy problem by a pseudoinverse procedure (Whitney 1969) or without any inversion (Berkenblit et al. 1986). Feldman & Levin suggest a procedure based on a regular inversion. These procedures are considered as an outcome of a more general approach.

Natural unconstrained movements obey rules different from constrained elementary movements

The concept of a conservative control strategy minimizing the number of degrees of freedom used is criticised with reference to 3-D simple reaching and grasping experiments. The vector error in a redundant system would not be the prime controlled variable, but rather the posture for reaching, as exemplified by nearly straight displacements in joint space as opposed to curved ones in task space.

Is λ an appropriate control variable for locomotion?

The lambda model predicts that the command received by each motor nucleus during locomotion is specific for the joint at which its muscle acts and is independent of external conditions. However, investigation of the commands received by motor nuclei during fictive locomotion and of the sensitivity of these commands to feedback from the limb during locomotion indicates that neither condition is satisfied.

How far should we extend the equilibrium point (lambda) hypothesis?

A key feature of the lambda model is the hypothesis of a local spring-like muscle-reflex system defined by a central control variable that has units of position. This is intriguing, especially for a study of postural stability in large-scale systems, but it has limited direct application to skilled everyday movements. If movement is considered as a goal-directed, neuro-optimization problem, however, theavailabilityof lambda-like peripheral models (vs. conventional musculoskeletal models) deserves exploration.

Reflex regulation of antagonist muscles for control of joint equilibrium position

A systems model of spinal neuro-musculo-skeletal system (alpha - gamma model) is developed to investigate the plausible roles of spinal proprioceptive feedback in movement control. The model is composed of a joint, a pair of antagonist muscles, length and velocity feedback from muscle spindle, as well as spinal stretch reflex, reciprocal inhibition and recurrent inhibition of Renshaw cells. A descending command modulates the background activation of alpha motoneuron pools in combination with these reflex activities. A static gamma command controls the fusimotor contraction of the spindle. Simulation results reveal that the equilibrium joint angle is linearly correlated to the level of static gamma fusimotor activity of the spindle for a wide range of external loading conditions and reflex gains, suggesting that these spinal reflexes may contribute to regulate the equilibrium position of the joint. Sensitivity analysis further shows that reflex gains and other central commands alter the quasi-linear relation in regular fashions. The reciprocal inhibition gain changes the slope of the linear theta(eq) - gamma curve; and the descending alpha excitation, the stretch reflex gain, and the external load all shift the theta(eq) - gamma curve in parallel. These results imply that reflex gains and descending alpha commands may be coordinated to maintain a unique theta(eq) - gamma curve while providing the flexibility to counteract external loads, to execute a movement, or to regulate additional muscle variables. Dynamic simulation suggests that control of a class of movements can be achieved with a triphasic, alpha pulse and a continuous gamma signal. The model study supports the notion of a dual strategy for controlling trajectories via a feedforward alpha command and for regulating the final equilibrium positions via a feedback gamma command.

Control processes underlying elbow flexion movements may be independent of kinematic and electromyographic patterns: experimental study and modelling

Using a non-linear dynamic model based on the lambda version of the equilibrium-point hypothesis, we investigated the shape and duration of the control patterns underlying discrete elbow movements. The model incorporates neural control variables, time-, position- and velocity-dependent intrinsic muscle and reflex properties. Two control variables (R and C) specify a positional frame of reference for activation of flexor and extensor motoneurons. The variable R (reciprocal command) specifies the referent joint angle (R) at which the transition of net flexor to extensor active torque or vice versa can be observed during changes in the actual joint angle elicited by an external force. The variable C (coactivation command) surrounds the transition angle by an angular range in which flexor and extensor muscles may be simultaneously active (if C > 0) or silent (if C < or = 0). An additional, time-dimensional control variable (mu command) influences the dependency of the threshold of the stretch reflex on movement velocity. This control variable is responsible for the reflex damping. Changes in the R command result in shifts in the equilibrium state of the system, a dynamical process leading to electromyographic modifications and movement production. Commands C and mu provide movement stability and effective energy dissipation preventing oscillations at the end of movement. A comparison of empirical and model data was carried out. A monotonic ramp-shaped pattern of the R command can account for the empirical kinematic and electromyographic patterns of the fastest elbow flexion movements made with or without additional inertia, as well as of self-paced movements. The rate of the shifts used in simulation was different for the three types of movements but independent of movement distance (20-80 degrees). This implies that, for a given type of movement, the distance is encoded by the duration of shift in the equilibrium state. The model also reproduces the kinematic and electromyographic patterns of the fastest uncorrected movements opposed in random trials by a high load (80-90% of the maximal) generated by position feedback to a torque motor. The following perturbation effects were simulated: a substantial decrease in the arm displacement (from 60-70 degrees to 5-15 degrees) and movement duration (to about 100 ms) so that these movements ended near the peak velocity of those which were not perturbed; a prolongation of the first agonist electromyographic burst as long as the load was applied; the suppression of the antagonist burst during the dynamic and static phases of movements: the reappearance of the antagonist burst in response to unloading accompanied by a short-latency suppression of agonist activity. These kinematic and electromyographic features of both perturbed and non-perturbed movements were reproduced by using the same control patterns which elicited a monotonic shift in the equilibrium state of the system ending before the peak velocity of non-perturbed movements. Our results suggest that the neural control processes underlying the fastest unopposed changes in the arm position are completed long before the end of the movement and phasic electromyographic activity. Neither the timing nor the amplitude of electromyographic bursts are planned but rather they represent the long-lasting dynamic response of central, reflex and mechanical components of the system to a monotonic, short-duration shift in the system's equilibrium state.

What can we expect from models of motor control?

The lambda model of servocontrol seems superior to the alpha model in terms of dealing with the mechanical complexities of nonlinear and multiarticular muscles. Both, however, can be trivialized by noting that the “control variable” may simply be the sum of descending influences at propriospinal interneurons in the case of the lambda model or in the muscles themselves in the case of the alpha model. The notion that the brain explicitly computes output in terms of any such control variables may be an engineering metaphor, useful for conceptual understanding but not for generating predictive hypotheses about higher motor circuitry.

Moving models of motion forward: Explication and a new concept

We affirm the dynamical systems approach taken by Feldman and Levin, but argue that a more mathematically rigorous and standard exposition of the model according to dynamical systems theory would greatly increase readability and testability. Such an explication would also have heuristic value, suggesting new variations of the model. We present one such variant, a new solution to the redundancy problem.

Can the λ model benefit from understanding human adaptation in weightlessness(and vice versa)?

Parameters of the lambda model seem tightly linked to certain characteristics of human performance influenced by weightlessness. This commentary suggests that there is a valuable opportunity to probe the lambda model using the changed environment experienced during space flight. The likely benefits are a better model and a better understanding ofthe consequences of weightlessness for human performance.

Twisted pairs: Does the motor system really care about joint configurations?

Extrapersonal frames of reference for aimed movements are representationally convenient. They may, however, carry associated costs when the movement is executed in terms of the complex coordination of multiple joints they require. Studies that have measured both fingertip and joint paths suggest the motor systems may seek a compromise between simplicity of extrapersonal spatial representation and computational simplicity of multi-joint execution.

Is the multi-joint pointing movement model applicable to equilibrium control during upper trunk movements?

Two aspects of the target article, (1) the extension of the equilibrium point theory to multi-joint movements, and (2) the consequence that the EMG pattern is not directly controlled by the central nervous system (CNS), are discussed in light of the experiments on upper trunk bending in humans. The principle component kinematic analysis and the analysis of the EMG data, obtained under microgravity and additional loading conditions, support the application of Feldman and Levin's for multi-joint pointing movement to equilibrium control during upper trunk movement.

The lambda model is only one piece in the motor control puzzle

The lambda model provides a physiologically grounded terminology for describing muscle function and emphasizes the important influence of environmental and reflex-mediated effects on final states. However, lambda itself is only a convenient point on the length-tension curve; its importance should not be overemphasized. Ascribing movement to changes in a lambda-based frame of reference is generally valid, but it leaves unanswered a number of questions concerning mechanisms.

Do control variables exist?

We argue that the concept of a control variable (CV) as described by Feldman and Levin needs to be revised because it does not account for the influence of sensory feedback from the periphery. We provide evidence from the realm of rhythmic movements that sensory feedback can permanently alter the frequency and phase of a centrally generated rhythm.

The λ model: Can it walk?

Generation of swing phase limb trajectory over obstacles during locomotion should be a reasonable test for the λ model proposed by Feldman and Levin. The observed features such as lack of simple amplitude scaling of endpoint (toe) trajectories for different obstacle heights, complex shaped toe velocity profiles, and exploitation of passive intersegmental dynamics to control limb elevation cannot be adequately explained by the λ model.

Position is everything?

Neurophysiological evidence consonant with F&L's lambda model is reviewed and results of additional experiments are presented. The evidence shows that there are neurons in the motor cortex that respond to selective band widths of passive sinusoidal movements; the additional data show how, with movement, directionally sensitive population vectors can be shown to emerge from the data.

Equifinality and phase-resetting: The role of control parameter manipulations

It is argued that the equilibrium point model can lead to new insights regarding transition and stability processes in movement coordination. The role of movement control parameters on equifinality and phase-resetting is discussed; not only control but also external control parameters can affect the global dynamical regime.

The lambda model and a hemispheric motor model of intentional hand movements

The lambda model of Feldman & Levin for intentional hand movement is compared with a hemispheric motor model (IIMM). Both models imply similar conclusions independently. This increases the validity of both models.

Can the λ model be used to interpret the activity of single neurons?

Whereas the λ model provides a useful technique to describe complex movements, the focus on control variables in this model limits its potential for interpreting the activity and function of many cells in motor areas of the CNS.

The case of the missing CVs: Multi-joint primitives

The search for simplifying principles in motor control motivates the target article. One method that the CNS uses to simplify the task of controlling a limb's mechanical properties is absent from the article. Evidence from multi-joint, force-field measurements and from kinematics that points to the existence of multi-joint primitives as control variables is discussed.

The patterns of control signals underlying elbow joint movements in humans

Position, velocity, flexor and extensor electromyographic (EMG) activity of fast, moderate and slow elbow movements to a target were recorded and simulated using a model in which reciprocal and co-activation central commands, proprioceptive feedback and mechanical properties of muscles were considered. Two hypotheses concerning the pattern of shift in the equilibrium point (EP) underlying the movements were tested. First, the nervous system specifies a constant rate of EP shift to produce movement and encodes displacement by the duration of the shift (ramp-shaped pattern). Second, in fast movements, the EP rapidly shifts towards the future final position but then shifts back and forth eventually reaching the final EP (N-shaped pattern). The ramp pattern was consistent with kinematic and EMG experimental data regardless of movement speed. In contrast, the N-shaped pattern was incompatible with the kinematic characteristics of fast movements.