Equilibrium Point Control Cannot be Refuted by Experimental Reconstruction of Equilibrium Point Trajectories

    Research output: Contribution to JournalArticleAcademicpeer-review

    Abstract

    In the literature, it has been hotly debated whether the brain uses internal models or equilibrium point (EP) control to generate arm movements. EP control involves specification of EP trajectories, time series of arm configurations in which internal forces and external forces are in equilibrium; if the arm is not in a specified EP, it is driven toward this EP by muscle forces arising due to central drive, reflexes, and muscle mechanics. EP control has been refuted by researchers claiming that EP trajectories underlying movements of subjects were complex. These researchers used an approach that involves applying force perturbations during movements of subjects and fitting a mass-spring-damper model to the kinematic responses, and then reconstructing the EP trajectory using the estimated stiffness, damping, and measured kinematics. In this study, we examined the validity of this approach using an EP-controlled musculoskeletal model of the arm. We used the latter model to simulate unperturbed and perturbed maximally fast movements and optimized the parameter values of a mass-spring-damper model to make it reproduce as best as possible the kinematic responses. It was shown that estimated stiffness not only depended on the "true" stiffness of the musculoskeletal model but on all of its dynamical parameters. Furthermore it was shown that reconstructed EP trajectories were in agreement with those presented in the literature but did not resemble the simple EP trajectories that had been used to generate the movement of the model. It was concluded that the refutation of EP control on the basis of results obtained with mass-spring-damper models was unjust. Copyright © 2007 The American Physiological Society.
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)1075-1082
    JournalJournal of Neurophysiology
    Volume98
    Issue number3
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 2007

    Fingerprint

    Biomechanical Phenomena
    Research Personnel
    Muscles
    Mechanics
    Reflex
    Brain

    Cite this

    @article{19df36ff128d472db1b5659262828202,
    title = "Equilibrium Point Control Cannot be Refuted by Experimental Reconstruction of Equilibrium Point Trajectories",
    abstract = "In the literature, it has been hotly debated whether the brain uses internal models or equilibrium point (EP) control to generate arm movements. EP control involves specification of EP trajectories, time series of arm configurations in which internal forces and external forces are in equilibrium; if the arm is not in a specified EP, it is driven toward this EP by muscle forces arising due to central drive, reflexes, and muscle mechanics. EP control has been refuted by researchers claiming that EP trajectories underlying movements of subjects were complex. These researchers used an approach that involves applying force perturbations during movements of subjects and fitting a mass-spring-damper model to the kinematic responses, and then reconstructing the EP trajectory using the estimated stiffness, damping, and measured kinematics. In this study, we examined the validity of this approach using an EP-controlled musculoskeletal model of the arm. We used the latter model to simulate unperturbed and perturbed maximally fast movements and optimized the parameter values of a mass-spring-damper model to make it reproduce as best as possible the kinematic responses. It was shown that estimated stiffness not only depended on the {"}true{"} stiffness of the musculoskeletal model but on all of its dynamical parameters. Furthermore it was shown that reconstructed EP trajectories were in agreement with those presented in the literature but did not resemble the simple EP trajectories that had been used to generate the movement of the model. It was concluded that the refutation of EP control on the basis of results obtained with mass-spring-damper models was unjust. Copyright {\circledC} 2007 The American Physiological Society.",
    author = "D.A. Kistemaker and {van Soest}, A.J. and M.F. Bobbert",
    year = "2007",
    doi = "10.1152/jn.00287.2007",
    language = "English",
    volume = "98",
    pages = "1075--1082",
    journal = "Journal of Neurophysiology",
    issn = "0022-3077",
    publisher = "American Physiological Society",
    number = "3",

    }

    Equilibrium Point Control Cannot be Refuted by Experimental Reconstruction of Equilibrium Point Trajectories. / Kistemaker, D.A.; van Soest, A.J.; Bobbert, M.F.

    In: Journal of Neurophysiology, Vol. 98, No. 3, 2007, p. 1075-1082.

    Research output: Contribution to JournalArticleAcademicpeer-review

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Equilibrium Point Control Cannot be Refuted by Experimental Reconstruction of Equilibrium Point Trajectories

    AU - Kistemaker, D.A.

    AU - van Soest, A.J.

    AU - Bobbert, M.F.

    PY - 2007

    Y1 - 2007

    N2 - In the literature, it has been hotly debated whether the brain uses internal models or equilibrium point (EP) control to generate arm movements. EP control involves specification of EP trajectories, time series of arm configurations in which internal forces and external forces are in equilibrium; if the arm is not in a specified EP, it is driven toward this EP by muscle forces arising due to central drive, reflexes, and muscle mechanics. EP control has been refuted by researchers claiming that EP trajectories underlying movements of subjects were complex. These researchers used an approach that involves applying force perturbations during movements of subjects and fitting a mass-spring-damper model to the kinematic responses, and then reconstructing the EP trajectory using the estimated stiffness, damping, and measured kinematics. In this study, we examined the validity of this approach using an EP-controlled musculoskeletal model of the arm. We used the latter model to simulate unperturbed and perturbed maximally fast movements and optimized the parameter values of a mass-spring-damper model to make it reproduce as best as possible the kinematic responses. It was shown that estimated stiffness not only depended on the "true" stiffness of the musculoskeletal model but on all of its dynamical parameters. Furthermore it was shown that reconstructed EP trajectories were in agreement with those presented in the literature but did not resemble the simple EP trajectories that had been used to generate the movement of the model. It was concluded that the refutation of EP control on the basis of results obtained with mass-spring-damper models was unjust. Copyright © 2007 The American Physiological Society.

    AB - In the literature, it has been hotly debated whether the brain uses internal models or equilibrium point (EP) control to generate arm movements. EP control involves specification of EP trajectories, time series of arm configurations in which internal forces and external forces are in equilibrium; if the arm is not in a specified EP, it is driven toward this EP by muscle forces arising due to central drive, reflexes, and muscle mechanics. EP control has been refuted by researchers claiming that EP trajectories underlying movements of subjects were complex. These researchers used an approach that involves applying force perturbations during movements of subjects and fitting a mass-spring-damper model to the kinematic responses, and then reconstructing the EP trajectory using the estimated stiffness, damping, and measured kinematics. In this study, we examined the validity of this approach using an EP-controlled musculoskeletal model of the arm. We used the latter model to simulate unperturbed and perturbed maximally fast movements and optimized the parameter values of a mass-spring-damper model to make it reproduce as best as possible the kinematic responses. It was shown that estimated stiffness not only depended on the "true" stiffness of the musculoskeletal model but on all of its dynamical parameters. Furthermore it was shown that reconstructed EP trajectories were in agreement with those presented in the literature but did not resemble the simple EP trajectories that had been used to generate the movement of the model. It was concluded that the refutation of EP control on the basis of results obtained with mass-spring-damper models was unjust. Copyright © 2007 The American Physiological Society.

    U2 - 10.1152/jn.00287.2007

    DO - 10.1152/jn.00287.2007

    M3 - Article

    VL - 98

    SP - 1075

    EP - 1082

    JO - Journal of Neurophysiology

    JF - Journal of Neurophysiology

    SN - 0022-3077

    IS - 3

    ER -