Search

A coordinate system is composed of an encoding, defining the dimensions of the space, and an origin. We examine the coordinate encoding used to update motor plans during sensory-motor adaptation to center-out reaches. Adaptation is induced using a novel paradigm in which feedback of reach endpoints is perturbed following a sinewave pattern over trials; the perturbed dimensions of the feedback were the axes of a Cartesian coordinate system in one session and a polar coordinate system in another session. For center-out reaches to randomly chosen target locations, reach errors observed at one target will require different corrections at other targets within Cartesian- and polar-coded systems. The sinewave adaptation technique allowed us to simultaneously adapt both dimensions of each coordinate system (x-y, or reach gain and angle), and identify the contributions of each perturbed dimension by adapting each at a distinct temporal frequency. The efficiency of this technique further allowed us to employ perturbations that were a fraction the size normally used, which avoids confounding automatic adaptive processes with deliberate adjustments made in response to obvious experimental manipulations. Subjects independently corrected errors in each coordinate in both sessions, suggesting that the nervous system encodes both a Cartesian- and polar-coordinate-based internal representation for motor adaptation. The gains and phase lags of the adaptive responses are not readily explained by current theories of sensory-motor adaptation., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Coordinate systems for movement planning are comprised of an anchor point (e.g., retinocentric coordinates) and a representation (encoding) of the desired movement. One of two representations is often assumed: a final-position code describing desired limb endpoint position and a vector code describing movement direction and extent. The existence of movement-planning systems using both representations is controversial. In our experiments, participants completed reaches grouped by target location (providing practice for a final-position code) and the same reaches grouped by movement vector (providing vector-code practice). Target-grouped reaches resulted in the isotropic (circular) distribution of errors predicted for position-coded reaches. The identical reaches grouped by vector resulted in error ellipses aligned with the reach direction, as predicted for vector-coded reaches. Manipulating only recent movement history to provide better learning for one or the other movement code, we provide definitive evidence that both movement representations are used in the identical task.

We examine the possibility that sensory and motor adaptation may be induced via a sinusoidally incremented perturbation. This sinewave adaptation method provides superior data for fitting a parametric model than when using the standard step-function method of perturbation, due to the relative difficulty of fitting a decaying exponential vs. a sinusoid. Using both experimental data and simulations, we demonstrate the difficulty of detecting the presence of motor adaptation using a step-function perturbation, compared to detecting motor adaptation using our sinewave perturbation method., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

We analyze the problem of obstacle avoidance from a Bayesian decision-theoretic perspective using an experimental task in which reaches around a virtual obstacle were made toward targets on an upright monitor. Subjects received monetary rewards for touching the target and incurred losses for accidentally touching the intervening obstacle. The locations of target-obstacle pairs within the workspace were varied from trial to trial. We compared human performance to that of a Bayesian ideal movement planner (who chooses motor strategies maximizing expected gain) using the Dominance Test employed in Hudson et al. (2007). The ideal movement planner suffers from the same sources of noise as the human, but selects movement plans that maximize expected gain in the presence of that noise. We find good agreement between the predictions of the model and actual performance in most but not all experimental conditions.

We examined how subjects plan speeded reaching movements when the precise target of the movement is not known at movement onset. Before each reach, subjects were given only a probability distribution on possible target positions. Only after completing part of the movement did the actual target appear. In separate experiments we varied the location of the mode and the scale of the prior distribution for possible targets. In both cases we found that subjects made use of prior probability information when planning reaches. We also devised two tests (Composite Benefit and Row Dominance tests) to determine whether subjects' performance met necessary conditions for optimality (defined as maximizing expected gain). We could not reject the hypothesis of optimality in the experiment where we varied the mode of the prior, but departures from optimality were found in response to changes in the scale of prior distributions.

We investigated whether pointing movements made with the torso would adapt to movement-contingent augmentation or attenuation of their spatial amplitude. The pointing task required subjects standing on a platform in the dark to orient the mid-sagittal plane of their torso to the remembered locations of just extinguished platform-fixed visual targets without moving their feet. Subjects alternated pointing at two chest-high targets, 60 degrees apart, (1) in a baseline period with the stance platform stationary, (2) during exposure to concomitant contra or ipsiversive platform rotations that grew incrementally to 50% of the velocity of torso rotation, and (3) after return in one step to stationary platform conditions. The velocity and amplitude of torso movements relative to space decreased 25-50% during exposure to contraversive platform rotations and increased 20-50% during ipsiversive rotations. Torso rotation kinematics relative to the platform (as well as the platform-fixed targets and feet) remained virtually constant throughout the incremental exposure period. Subjects were unaware of the altered motion of their body in space imposed by the platform and did not perceive their motor adjustments. Upon return to stationary conditions, torso rotation movements were smaller and slower following adaptation to contraversive rotations and larger and faster after ipsiversive platform rotations. These results indicate a rapid sensory-motor recalibration to the altered relationship between spatial (inertial) torso motion and intended torso motion relative to the feet, and rapid re-adaptation to normal conditions. The adaptive system producing such robust torso regulation provides a critical basis for control of arm, head, and eye movements.