Prediction in the Vestibular Control of Arm Movements

Predictive steering: integration of artificial motor signals in self-motion estimation

The brain's computations for active and passive self-motion estimation can be unified with a single model that optimally combines vestibular and visual signals with sensory predictions based on efference copies. It is unknown whether this theoretical framework also applies to the integration of artificial motor signals, such as those that occur when driving a car, or whether self-motion estimation in this situation relies on sole feedback control. Here, we examined if training humans to control a self-motion platform leads to the construction of an accurate internal model of the mapping between the steering movement and the vestibular reafference. Participants (n = 15) sat on a linear motion platform and actively controlled the platform's velocity using a steering wheel to translate their body to a memorized visual target (motion condition). We compared their steering behavior to that of participants (n = 15) who remained stationary and instead aligned a nonvisible line with the target (stationary condition). To probe learning, the gain between the steering wheel angle and the platform or line velocity changed abruptly twice during the experiment. These gain changes were virtually undetectable in the displacement error in the motion condition, whereas clear deviations were observed in the stationary condition, showing that participants in the motion condition made within-trial changes to their steering behavior. We conclude that vestibular feedback allows not only the online control of steering but also a rapid adaptation to the gain changes to update the brain's internal model of the mapping between the steering movement and the vestibular reafference.NEW & NOTEWORTHY Perception of self-motion is known to depend on the integration of sensory signals and, when the motion is self-generated, the predicted sensory reafference based on motor efference copies. Here we show, using a closed-loop steering experiment with a direct coupling between the steering movement and the vestibular self-motion feedback, that humans are also able to integrate artificial motor signals, like the motor signals that occur when driving a car.

Vestibular contributions to online reach execution are processed via mechanisms with knowledge about limb biomechanics

Studies of reach control with the body stationary have shown that proprioceptive and visual feedback signals contributing to rapid corrections during reaching are processed by neural circuits that incorporate knowledge about the physical properties of the limb (an internal model). However, among the most common spatial and mechanical perturbations to the limb are those caused by our body's own motion, suggesting that processing of vestibular signals for online reach control may reflect a similar level of sophistication. We investigated this hypothesis using galvanic vestibular stimulation (GVS) to selectively activate the vestibular sensors, simulating body rotation, as human subjects reached to remembered targets in different directions (forward, leftward, rightward). If vestibular signals contribute to purely kinematic/spatial corrections for body motion, GVS should evoke reach trajectory deviations of similar size in all directions. In contrast, biomechanical modeling predicts that if vestibular processing for online reach control takes into account knowledge of the physical properties of the limb and the forces applied on it by body motion, then GVS should evoke trajectory deviations that are significantly larger during forward and leftward reaches as compared with rightward reaches. When GVS was applied during reaching, the observed deviations were on average consistent with this prediction. In contrast, when GVS was instead applied before reaching, evoked deviations were similar across directions, as predicted for a purely spatial correction mechanism. These results suggest that vestibular signals, like proprioceptive and visual feedback, are processed for online reach control via sophisticated neural mechanisms that incorporate knowledge of limb biomechanics.NEW & NOTEWORTHY Studies examining proprioceptive and visual contributions to rapid corrections for externally applied mechanical and spatial perturbations during reaching have provided evidence for flexible processing of sensory feedback that accounts for musculoskeletal system dynamics. Notably, however, such perturbations commonly arise from our body's own motion. In line with this, we provide compelling evidence that, similar to proprioceptive and visual signals, vestibular signals are processed for online reach control via sophisticated mechanisms that incorporate knowledge of limb biomechanics.

Online corrective responses following target jump in altered gravitoinertial force field point to nested feedforward and feedback control

Studies on goal-directed arm movements have shown a close link between feedforward and feedback control in protocols where both planning and online control processes faced a similar type of perturbation, either mechanical or visual. This particular context might have facilitated the use of an adapted internal model by feedforward and feedback control. Here, we considered this link in a context where, after feedforward control was adapted through proprioception-based processes, feedback control was tested under visual perturbation. We analyzed the response of the reaching hand to target displacements following adaptation to an altered force field induced by rotating participants at constant velocity. Reaching corrections were assessed through variables related to the accuracy (lateral and longitudinal end point errors) and kinematics (movement time, peak velocity) of the corrective movements. The electromyographic activity of different arm muscles (pectoralis, posterior deltoid, biceps brachii, and triceps brachii) was analyzed. Statistical analyses revealed that accuracy and kinematics of corrective movements were strikingly alike between normal and altered gravitoinertial force fields. However, pectoralis and biceps muscle activities recorded during corrective movements were significantly modified to counteract the effect of rotation-induced Coriolis and centrifugal forces on the arm. Remarkably, feedback control was functional from the very first time participants encountered a target jump in the altered force field. Overall, the present results demonstrate that feedforward control enables immediate functional feedback control even when applied to distinct sensorimotor processes.NEW & NOTEWORTHY We investigated the link between feedforward and feedback control when applying a double-step perturbation (visual target jump) during reaching movements performed in modified gravitoinertial environments. Altogether, kinematics and EMG analyses showed that movement corrections were highly effective in the different force fields, suggesting that, although feedforward and feedback control were driven by different sensory inputs, feedback control was remarkably functional from the very first time participants encountered a target jump in the altered force field.

Double-Step Paradigm in Microgravity: Preservation of Sensorimotor Flexibility in Altered Gravitational Force Field

The way we can correct our ongoing movements to sudden and unforeseen perturbations is key to our ability to rapidly adjust our behavior to novel environmental demands. Referred to as sensorimotor flexibility, this ability can be assessed by the double-step paradigm in which participants must correct their ongoing arm movements to reach targets that unexpectedly change location (i.e., target jump). While this type of corrections has been demonstrated in normogravity in the extent of reasonable spatiotemporal constraints underpinning the target jumps, less is known about sensorimotor flexibility in altered gravitational force fields. We thus aimed to assess sensorimotor flexibility by comparing online arm pointing corrections observed during microgravity episodes of parabolic flights with normogravity standards. Seven participants were asked to point as fast and as accurately as possible toward one of two visual targets with their right index finger. The targets were aligned vertically in the mid-sagittal plane and were separated by 10 cm. In 20% of the trials, the initially illuminated lower target was switched off at movement onset while the upper target was concomitantly switched on prompting participants to change the trajectory of their ongoing movements. Results showed that, both in normogravity and microgravity, participants successfully performed the pointing task including when the target jumped unexpectedly (i.e., comparable success rate). Most importantly, no significant difference was found in target jump trials regarding arm kinematics between both gravitational environments, neither in terms of peak velocity, relative deceleration duration, peak acceleration or time to peak acceleration. Using inverse dynamics based on experimental and anthropometrical data, we demonstrated that the shoulder torques for accelerating and decelerating the vertical arm movements substantially differed between microgravity and normogravity. Our data therefore highlight the capacity of the central nervous system to perform very fast neuromuscular adjustments that are adapted to the gravitational constraints. We discuss our findings by considering the contribution of feedforward and feedback mechanisms in the online control of arm pointing movements.

Two Neural Circuits to Point Towards Home Position After Passive Body Displacements

A challenge in motor control research is to understand the mechanisms underlying the transformation of sensory information into arm motor commands. Here, we investigated these transformation mechanisms for movements whose targets were defined by information issued from body rotations in the dark (i.e., idiothetic information). Immediately after being rotated, participants reproduced the amplitude of their perceived rotation using their arm (Experiment 1). The cortical activation during movement planning was analyzed using electroencephalography and source analyses. Task-related activities were found in regions of interest (ROIs) located in the prefrontal cortex (PFC), dorsal premotor cortex, dorsal region of the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) and the sensorimotor cortex. Importantly, critical regions for the cognitive encoding of space did not show significant task-related activities. These results suggest that arm movements were planned using a sensorimotor-type of spatial representation. However, when a 8 s delay was introduced between body rotation and the arm movement (Experiment 2), we found that areas involved in the cognitive encoding of space [e.g., ventral premotor cortex (vPM), rostral ACC, inferior and superior posterior parietal cortex (PPC)] showed task-related activities. Overall, our results suggest that the use of a cognitive-type of representation for planning arm movement after body motion is necessary when relevant spatial information must be stored before triggering the movement.

Transformation of vestibular signals for the decisions of hand choice during whole body motion

In daily life, we frequently reach toward objects while our body is in motion. We have recently shown that body accelerations influence the decision of which hand to use for the reach, possibly by modulating the body-centered computations of the expected reach costs. However, head orientation relative to the body was not manipulated, and hence it remains unclear whether vestibular signals contribute in their head-based sensory frame or in a transformed body-centered reference frame to these cost calculations. To test this, subjects performed a preferential reaching task to targets at various directions while they were sinusoidally translated along the lateral body axis, with their head either aligned with the body (straight ahead) or rotated 18° to the left. As a measure of hand preference, we determined the target direction that resulted in equiprobable right/left-hand choices. Results show that head orientation affects this balanced target angle when the body is stationary but does not further modulate hand preference when the body is in motion. Furthermore, reaction and movement times were larger for reaches to the balanced target angle, resembling a competitive selection process, and were modulated by head orientation when the body was stationary. During body translation, reaction and movement times depended on the phase of the motion, but this phase-dependent modulation had no interaction with head orientation. We conclude that the brain transforms vestibular signals to body-centered coordinates at the early stage of reach planning, when the decision of hand choice is computed. NEW & NOTEWORTHY The brain takes inertial acceleration into account in computing the anticipated biomechanical costs that guide hand selection during whole body motion. Whereas these costs are defined in a body-centered, muscle-based reference frame, the otoliths detect the inertial acceleration in head-centered coordinates. By systematically manipulating head position relative to the body, we show that the brain transforms otolith signals into body-centered coordinates at an early stage of reach planning, i.e., before the decision of hand choice is computed.

Proprioceptive loss and the perception, control and learning of arm movements in humans: evidence from sensory neuronopathy

It is uncertain how vision and proprioception contribute to adaptation of voluntary arm movements. In normal participants, adaptation to imposed forces is possible with or without vision, suggesting that proprioception is sufficient; in participants with proprioceptive loss (PL), adaptation is possible with visual feedback, suggesting that proprioception is unnecessary. In experiment 1 adaptation to, and retention of, perturbing forces were evaluated in three chronically deafferented participants. They made rapid reaching movements to move a cursor toward a visual target, and a planar robot arm applied orthogonal velocity-dependent forces. Trial-by-trial error correction was observed in all participants. Such adaptation has been characterized with a dual-rate model: a fast process that learns quickly, but retains poorly and a slow process that learns slowly and retains well. Experiment 2 showed that the PL participants had large individual differences in learning and retention rates compared to normal controls. Experiment 3 tested participants’ perception of applied forces. With visual feedback, the PL participants could report the perturbation’s direction as well as controls; without visual feedback, thresholds were elevated. Experiment 4 showed, in healthy participants, that force direction could be estimated from head motion, at levels close to the no-vision threshold for the PL participants. Our results show that proprioceptive loss influences perception, motor control and adaptation but that proprioception from the moving limb is not essential for adaptation to, or detection of, force fields. The differences in learning and retention seen between the three deafferented participants suggest that they achieve these tasks in idiosyncratic ways after proprioceptive loss, possibly integrating visual and vestibular information with individual cognitive strategies.

Role of Rostral Fastigial Neurons in Encoding a Body-Centered Representation of Translation in Three Dimensions

Many daily behaviors rely critically on estimates of our body motion. Such estimates must be computed by combining neck proprioceptive signals with vestibular signals that have been transformed from a head- to a body-centered reference frame. Recent studies showed that deep cerebellar neurons in the rostral fastigial nucleus (rFN) reflect these computations, but whether they explicitly encode estimates of body motion remains unclear. A key limitation in addressing this question is that, to date, cell tuning properties have only been characterized for a restricted set of motions across head-re-body orientations in the horizontal plane. Here we examined, for the first time, how 3D spatiotemporal tuning for translational motion varies with head-re-body orientation in both horizontal and vertical planes in the rFN of male macaques. While vestibular coding was profoundly influenced by head-re-body position in both planes, neurons typically reflected at most a partial transformation. However, their tuning shifts were not random but followed the specific spatial trajectories predicted for a 3D transformation. We show that these properties facilitate the linear decoding of fully body-centered motion representations in 3D with a broad range of temporal characteristics from small groups of 5-7 cells. These results demonstrate that the vestibular reference frame transformation required to compute body motion is indeed encoded by cerebellar neurons. We propose that maintaining partially transformed rFN responses with different spatiotemporal properties facilitates the creation of downstream body motion representations with a range of dynamic characteristics, consistent with the functional requirements for tasks such as postural control and reaching.SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT Estimates of body motion are essential for many daily activities. Vestibular signals are important contributors to such estimates but must be transformed from a head- to a body-centered reference frame. Here, we provide the first direct demonstration that the cerebellum computes this transformation fully in 3D. We show that the output of these computations is reflected in the tuning properties of deep cerebellar rostral fastigial nucleus neurons in a specific distributed fashion that facilitates the efficient creation of body-centered translation estimates with a broad range of temporal properties (i.e., from acceleration to position). These findings support an important role for the rostral fastigial nucleus as a source of body translation estimates functionally relevant for behaviors ranging from postural control to perception.

Co-ordination of the upper and lower limbs for vestibular control of balance

Key points

When standing and holding an earth‐fixed object, galvanic vestibular stimulation (GVS) can evoke upper limb responses to maintain balance.

In the present study, we determined how these responses are affected by grip context (no contact, light grip and firm grip), as well as how they are co‐ordinated with the lower limbs to maintain balance.

When GVS was applied during firm grip, hand and ground reaction forces were generated.

The directions of these force vectors were co‐ordinated such that the overall body sway response was always aligned with the inter‐aural axis (i.e. craniocentric).

When GVS was applied during light grip (< 1 N), hand forces were secondary to body movement, suggesting that the arm performed a mostly passive role.

These results demonstrate that a minimum level of grip is required before the upper limb becomes active in balance control and also that the upper and lower limbs co‐ordinate for an appropriate whole‐body sway response.

Abstract

Vestibular stimulation can evoke responses in the arm when it is used for balance. In the present study, we determined how these responses are affected by grip context, as well as how they are co‐ordinated with the rest of the body. Galvanic vestibular stimulation (GVS) was used to evoke balance responses under three conditions of manual contact with an earth‐fixed object: no contact, light grip (< 1 N) (LG) and firm grip (FG). As grip progressed along this continuum, we observed an increase in GVS‐evoked hand force, with a simultaneous reduction in ground reaction force (GRF) through the feet. During LG, hand force was secondary to the GVS‐evoked body sway response, indicating that the arm performed a mostly passive role. By contrast, during FG, the arm became actively involved in driving body sway, as revealed by an early force impulse in the opposite direction to that seen in LG. We then examined how the direction of this active hand vector was co‐ordinated with the lower limbs. Consistent with previous findings on sway anisotropy, FG skewed the direction of the GVS‐evoked GRF vector towards the axis of baseline postural instability. However, this was effectively cancelled by the hand force vector, such that the whole‐body sway response remained aligned with the inter‐aural axis, maintaining the craniocentric principle. These results show that a minimum level of grip is necessary before the upper limb plays an active role in vestibular‐evoked balance responses. Furthermore, they demonstrate that upper and lower‐limb forces are co‐ordinated to produce an appropriate whole‐body sway response.

When standing and holding an earth‐fixed object, galvanic vestibular stimulation (GVS) can evoke upper limb responses to maintain balance.

In the present study, we determined how these responses are affected by grip context (no contact, light grip and firm grip), as well as how they are co‐ordinated with the lower limbs to maintain balance.

When GVS was applied during firm grip, hand and ground reaction forces were generated.

The directions of these force vectors were co‐ordinated such that the overall body sway response was always aligned with the inter‐aural axis (i.e. craniocentric).

When GVS was applied during light grip (< 1 N), hand forces were secondary to body movement, suggesting that the arm performed a mostly passive role.

These results demonstrate that a minimum level of grip is required before the upper limb becomes active in balance control and also that the upper and lower limbs co‐ordinate for an appropriate whole‐body sway response.

Vestibular stimulation-induced facilitation of cervical premotoneuronal systems in humans

It is unclear how descending inputs from the vestibular system affect the excitability of cervical interneurons in humans. To elucidate this, we investigated the effects of galvanic vestibular stimulation (GVS) on the spatial facilitation of motor-evoked potentials (MEPs) induced by combined pyramidal tract and peripheral nerve stimulation. To assess the spatial facilitation, electromyograms were recorded from the biceps brachii muscles (BB) of healthy subjects. Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) over the contralateral primary motor cortex and electrical stimulation of the ipsilateral ulnar nerve at the wrist were delivered either separately or together, with interstimulus intervals of 10 ms (TMS behind). Anodal/cathodal GVS was randomly delivered with TMS and/or ulnar nerve stimulation. The combination of TMS and ulnar nerve stimulation facilitated BB MEPs significantly more than the algebraic summation of responses induced separately by TMS and ulnar nerve stimulation (i.e., spatial facilitation). MEP facilitation significantly increased when combined stimulation was delivered with GVS (p < 0.01). No significant differences were found between anodal and cathodal GVS. Furthermore, single motor unit recordings showed that the short-latency excitatory peak in peri-stimulus time histograms during combined stimulation increased significantly with GVS. The spatial facilitatory effects of combined stimulation with short interstimulus intervals (i.e., 10 ms) indicate that facilitation occurred at the premotoneuronal level in the cervical cord. The present findings therefore suggest that GVS facilitates the cervical interneuron system that integrates inputs from the pyramidal tract and peripheral nerves and excites motoneurons innervating the arm muscles.

Task-dependent vestibular feedback responses in reaching

When reaching for an earth-fixed object during self-rotation, the motor system should appropriately integrate vestibular signals and sensory predictions to compensate for the intervening motion and its induced inertial forces. While it is well established that this integration occurs rapidly, it is unknown whether vestibular feedback is specifically processed dependent on the behavioral goal. Here, we studied whether vestibular signals evoke fixed responses with the aim to preserve the hand trajectory in space or are processed more flexibly, correcting trajectories only in task-relevant spatial dimensions. We used galvanic vestibular stimulation to perturb reaching movements toward a narrow or a wide target. Results show that the same vestibular stimulation led to smaller trajectory corrections to the wide than the narrow target. We interpret this reduced compensation as a task-dependent modulation of vestibular feedback responses, tuned to minimally intervene with the task-irrelevant dimension of the reach. These task-dependent vestibular feedback corrections are in accordance with a central prediction of optimal feedback control theory and mirror the sophistication seen in feedback responses to mechanical and visual perturbations of the upper limb.NEW & NOTEWORTHY Correcting limb movements for external perturbations is a hallmark of flexible sensorimotor behavior. While visual and mechanical perturbations are corrected in a task-dependent manner, it is unclear whether a vestibular perturbation, naturally arising when the body moves, is selectively processed in reach control. We show, using galvanic vestibular stimulation, that reach corrections to vestibular perturbations are task dependent, consistent with a prediction of optimal feedback control theory.

Vestibular feedback maintains reaching accuracy during body movement

Key points

Reaching movements can be perturbed by vestibular input, but the function of this response is unclear.

Here, we applied galvanic vestibular stimulation concurrently with real body movement while subjects maintained arm position either fixed in space or fixed with respect to their body.

During the fixed‐in‐space conditions, galvanic vestibular stimulation caused large changes in arm trajectory consistent with a compensatory response to maintain upper‐limb accuracy in the face of body movement.

Galvanic vestibular stimulation responses were absent during the body‐fixed task, demonstrating task dependency in vestibular control of the upper limb.

The results suggest that the function of vestibular‐evoked arm movements is to maintain the accuracy of the upper limb during unpredictable body movement, but only when reaching in an earth‐fixed reference frame.

Abstract

When using our arms to interact with the world, unintended body motion can introduce movement error. A mechanism that could detect and compensate for such motion would be beneficial. Observations of arm movements evoked by vestibular stimulation provide some support for this mechanism. However, the physiological function underlying these artificially evoked movements is unclear from previous research. For such a mechanism to be functional, it should operate only when the arm is being controlled in an earth‐fixed rather than a body‐fixed reference frame. In the latter case, compensation would be unnecessary and even deleterious. To test this hypothesis, subjects were gently rotated in a chair while being asked to maintain their outstretched arm pointing towards either earth‐fixed or body‐fixed memorized targets. Galvanic vestibular stimulation was applied concurrently during rotation to isolate the influence of vestibular input, uncontaminated by inertial factors. During the earth‐fixed task, galvanic vestibular stimulation produced large polarity‐dependent corrections in arm position. These corrections mimicked those evoked when chair velocity was altered without any galvanic vestibular stimulation, indicating a compensatory arm response to a sensation of altered body motion. In stark contrast, corrections were completely absent during the body‐fixed task, despite the same chair movement profile and arm posture. These effects persisted when we controlled for differences in limb kinematics between the two tasks. Our results demonstrate that vestibular control of the upper limb maintains reaching accuracy during unpredictable body motion. The observation that such responses occurred only when reaching within an earth‐fixed reference frame confirms the functional nature of vestibular‐evoked arm movement.

Reaching movements can be perturbed by vestibular input, but the function of this response is unclear.

Here, we applied galvanic vestibular stimulation concurrently with real body movement while subjects maintained arm position either fixed in space or fixed with respect to their body.

During the fixed‐in‐space conditions, galvanic vestibular stimulation caused large changes in arm trajectory consistent with a compensatory response to maintain upper‐limb accuracy in the face of body movement.

Galvanic vestibular stimulation responses were absent during the body‐fixed task, demonstrating task dependency in vestibular control of the upper limb.

The results suggest that the function of vestibular‐evoked arm movements is to maintain the accuracy of the upper limb during unpredictable body movement, but only when reaching in an earth‐fixed reference frame.

The influence of scopolamine on motor control and attentional processes

Background: Motion sickness may be caused by a sensory conflict between the visual and the vestibular systems. Scopolamine, known to be the most effective therapy to control the vegetative symptoms of motion sickness, acts on the vestibular nucleus and potentially the vestibulospinal pathway, which may affect balance and motor tasks requiring both attentional process and motor balance. The aim of this study was to explore the effect of scopolamine on motor control and attentional processes.

Methods: Seven subjects were evaluated on four different tasks before and after a subcutaneous injection of scopolamine (0.2 mg): a one-minute balance test, a subjective visual vertical test, a pointing task and a galvanic vestibular stimulation with EMG recordings.

Results: The results showed that the reaction time and the movement duration were not modified after the injection of scopolamine. However, there was an increase in the center of pressure displacement during the balance test, a decrease in EMG muscle response after galvanic vestibular stimulation and an alteration in the perception of verticality.

Discussion: These results confirm that low doses of scopolamine such as those prescribed to avoid motion sickness have no effect on attentional processes, but that it is essential to consider the responsiveness of each subject. However, scopolamine did affect postural control and the perception of verticality. In conclusion, the use of scopolamine to prevent motion sickness must be considered carefully because it could increase imbalances in situations when individuals are already at risk of falling (e.g., sailing, parabolic flight).