Cited by 393Motor Control and AdaptationNeural dynamics and brain functionMemory and Neural Mechanisms

A central source of movement variability

Open access
Churchland, Mark M., Afshar, Afsheen, Shenoy, Krishna V.·2006·Neuron

Abstract

Movements are universally, sometimes frustratingly, variable. When such variability causes error, we typically assume that something went wrong during the movement. The same assumption is made by recent and influential models of motor control. These posit that the principal limit on repeatable performance is neuromuscular noise that corrupts movement as it occurs. An alternative hypothesis is that movement variability arises before movements begin, during motor preparation. We examined this possibility directly by recording the preparatory activity of single cortical neurons during a highly practiced reach task. Small variations in preparatory neural activity were predictive of small variations in the upcoming reach. Effect magnitudes were such that at least half of the observed movement variability likely had its source during motor preparation. Thus, even for a highly practiced task, the ability to repeatedly plan the same movement limits our ability to repeatedly execute the same movement.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuron.2006.10.034

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • There is evidence for a trial-to-trial correlation between the response latency and the preparatory activity of cortical movement neurons, before the target onset, in saccade and other sensory-motor tasks.

    “There is also evidence for a trial-to-trial correlation between the response latency and the preparatory activity of cortical movement neurons, before the target onset, in saccade and other sensory-motor tasks (Dorris et al., 1997; Churchland et al., 2006; Nakahara et al., 2006).”

    From Decision Making in Recurrent Neuronal Circuits (2008) · cites this paper as Churchland et al., 2006

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Churchland, M. M., Afshar, A., & Shenoy, K. V.
Affiliations
Stanford University (US)
Corresponding author
Shenoy, Krishna V.
Venue
Neuron
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2006-12
Volume
52
Issue
6
Pages
1085-1096
ISSN
0896-6273 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1998425584
Cited by
393
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 27 · 2017: 27 · 2016: 22 · 2015: 20 · 2014: 33 · 2013: 20 · 2012: 24
FWCI
5.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Neuron (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (T32NS007158)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Motor Control and Adaptation
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
Keywords
movement variability, motor preparation, motor control, cortical neurons, single-unit recording, motor planning, motor errors
MeSH terms
Animals, Behavior, Animal, Biomechanical Phenomena, Cell Count, Electromyography, Macaca mulatta, Male, Motor Cortex, Movement, Neurons, Psychomotor Performance, Reaction Time, Regression, Psychology, Evoked Potentials, Motor

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review