Using Feedback Control to Reduce Limb Impedance during Forceful Contractions

Finger stability in precision grips

SignificanceHand skills rely on the precision grip to hold objects with the fingertips. In rare instances, our finger's joints undergo a form of buckling when we push with the fingertip and snap into hyperextension. Suppressing this instability is crucial for hand use, but how the nervous system avoids buckling is unknown. We studied people applying forces with the tip of their index fingers and found that the nervous system relies on the spring-like action of muscles for stability. The muscles cocontract to stabilize the joints but reduce the strength and compliance of our fingers. Thus, the motor skill of precision grip arises from the careful control of muscle cocontraction to balance the trade-off between finger stability, strength, and flexibility.

Leveraging Joint Mechanics Simplifies the Neural Control of Movement

Behaviors we perform each day, such as manipulating an object or walking, require precise control of the interaction forces between our bodies and the environment. These forces are generated by muscle contractions, specified by the nervous system, and by joint mechanics, determined by the intrinsic properties of the musculoskeletal system. Depending on behavioral goals, joint mechanics might simplify or complicate control of movement by the nervous system. Whether humans can exploit joint mechanics to simplify neural control remains unclear. Here we evaluated if leveraging joint mechanics simplifies neural control by comparing performance in three tasks that required subjects to generate specified torques about the ankle during imposed sinusoidal movements; only one task required torques that could be generated by leveraging the intrinsic mechanics of the joint. The complexity of the neural control was assessed by subjects' perceived difficulty and the resultant task performance. We developed a novel approach that used continuous estimates of ankle impedance, a quantitative description of the joint mechanics, and measures of muscle activity to determine the mechanical and neural contributions to the net ankle torque generated in each task. We found that the torque resulting from changes in neural control was reduced when ankle impedance was consistent with the task being performed. Subjects perceived this task to be easier than those that were not consistent with the impedance of the ankle and were able to perform it with the highest level of consistency across repeated trials. These results demonstrate that leveraging the mechanical properties of a joint can simplify task completion and improve performance.

Independent control of cocontraction and reciprocal activity during goal-directed reaching in muscle space

The movement in a joint is facilitated by a pair of muscles that pull in opposite directions. The difference in the pair’s muscle force or reciprocal activity results in joint torque, while the overlapping muscle force or the cocontraction is related to the joint’s stiffness. Cocontraction knowingly adapts implicitly over a number of movements, but it is unclear whether the central nervous system can actively regulate cocontraction in a goal-directed manner in a short span of time. We developed a muscle interface where a cursor’s horizontal position was determined by the reciprocal activity of the shoulder flexion–extension muscle pair, while the vertical position was controlled by its cocontraction. Participants made goal-directed movements to single and via-point targets in the two-dimensional muscle space, learning to move the cursor along the shortest path. Simulations using an optimal control framework suggest that the reciprocal activity and the cocontraction may be controlled independently by the CNS, albeit at a rate orders of magnitude slower than the muscle’s maximal activation speed.

Stiffness as a control factor for object manipulation

During manipulation, force is exerted with the expectation that an object will move in an intended manner. This prediction is a learned coordination between force and movement. Mechanically, impedance is a way to describe this coordination, and object interaction could be anticipated by setting impedance before the hand moves the object. This strategy would be especially important at the end of a reach, because feedback is ineffective for rapid force changes. Since mechanical impedance is not subject to the time delays of feedback, it can, if set properly, produce the desired motion on impact. We examined this possibility by instructing subjects to move a handle to a specific target position along a track. The handle was locked in place until the subject exerted enough force to cross a threshold; the handle was then released abruptly to move along the track. We hypothesized that this ballistic release task would encourage subjects to modify impedance in anticipation of the upcoming movement and found that one component of impedance, stiffness, varied in a way that matched the behavioral demands of the task. Analysis suggests that this stiffness was set before the handle moved and governed the subsequent motion. We also found separate components of muscle activity that corresponded to stiffness and to changes in force. Our results show that subjects used a robust and efficient strategy to coordinate force and displacement by modulating muscle activity in a way that was behaviorally relevant in the task.NEW & NOTEWORTHY The arm can behave like a spring, and this mechanical behavior can be advantageous in situations requiring rapid changes in force and/or displacement. Selection of a proper "virtual" spring before the occurrence of a rapid transient could facilitate a desired responsive movement. We show that these spring-like arm mechanics, set in anticipation of an instantaneous force change, function as an efficient strategy to control movement when feedback is ineffective.