The posterior parietal cortex (PPC) is the most likely site where egocentric spatial relationships are represented in the brain. PPC cells receive visual, auditory, somaesthetic, and vestibular sensory inputs; oculomotor, head, limb, and body motor signals; and strong motivational projections from the limbic system. Their discharge increases not only when an animal moves towards a sensory target, but also when it directs its attention to it. PPC lesions have the opposite effect: sensory inattention and neglect. The PPC does not seem (...) to contain a “map” of the location of objects in space but a distributed neural network for transforming one set of sensory vectors into other sensory reference frames or into various motor coordinate systems. Which set of transformation rules is used probably depends on attention, which selectively enhances the synapses needed for making a particular sensory comparison or aiming a particular movement. (shrink)

A theory is presented to explain how accurate, single-joint movements are controlled. The theory applies to movements across different distances, with different inertial loads, toward targets of different widths over a wide range of experimentally manipulated velocities. The theory is based on three propositions. (1) Movements are planned according to “strategies” of which there are at least two: a speed-insensitive (SI) and a speed-sensitive (SS) one. (2) These strategies can be equated with sets of rules for performing diverse movement tasks. (...) The choice between SI and SS depends on whether movement speed and/or movement time (and hence appropriate muscle forces) must be constrained to meet task requirements. (3) The electromyogram can be interpreted as a low-pass filtered version of the controlling signal to the motoneuron pools. This controlling signal can be modelled as a rectangular excitation pulse in which modulation occurs in either pulse amplitude or pulse width. Movements to different distances and with loads are controlled by the SI strategy, which modulates pulse width. Movements in which speed must be explicitly regulated are controlled by the SS strategy, which modulates pulse amplitude. The distinction between the two movement strategies reconciles many apparent conflicts in the motor control literature. (shrink)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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. (shrink)

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.

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?

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.

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. (shrink)

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.