Cited by 321Motor Control and AdaptationHuman Motion and AnimationMuscle activation and electromyography studies

Quantitative Examinations of Internal Representations for Arm Trajectory Planning: Minimum Commanded Torque Change Model

Nakano, Eri, Imamizu, Hiroshi, Osu, Rieko, Uno, Yoji, Gomi, Hiroaki, Yoshioka, Toshinori, Kawato, Mitsuo·1999·Journal of Neurophysiology

Abstract

Quantitative examinations of internal representations for arm trajectory planning: minimum commanded torque change model. A number of invariant features of multijoint planar reaching movements have been observed in measured hand trajectories. These features include roughly straight hand paths and bell-shaped speed profiles where the trajectory curvatures between transverse and radial movements have been found to be different. For quantitative and statistical investigations, we obtained a large amount of trajectory data within a wide range of the workspace in the horizontal and sagittal planes (400 trajectories for each subject). A pair of movements within the horizontal and sagittal planes was set to be equivalent in the elbow and shoulder flexion/extension. The trajectory curvatures of the corresponding pair in these planes were almost the same. Moreover, these curvatures can be accurately reproduced with a linear regression from the summation of rotations in the elbow and shoulder joints. This means that trajectory curvatures systematically depend on the movement location and direction represented in the intrinsic body coordinates. We then examined the following four candidates as planning spaces and the four corresponding computational models for trajectory planning. The candidates were as follows: the minimum hand jerk model in an extrinsic-kinematic space, the minimum angle jerk model in an intrinsic-kinematic space, the minimum torque change model in an intrinsic-dynamic-mechanical space, and the minimum commanded torque change model in an intrinsic-dynamic-neural space. The minimum commanded torque change model, which is proposed here as a computable version of the minimum motor command change model, reproduced actual trajectories best for curvature, position, velocity, acceleration, and torque. The model’s prediction that the longer the duration of the movement the larger the trajectory curvature was also confirmed. Movements passing through via-points in the horizontal plane were also measured, and they converged to those predicted by the minimum commanded torque change model with training. Our results indicated that the brain may plan, and learn to plan, the optimal trajectory in the intrinsic coordinates considering arm and muscle dynamics and using representations for motor commands controlling muscle tensions.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1152/jn.1999.81.5.2140

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • This mixture of weighted error variance is related formally to phenomenological cost functions proposed to account for movement trajectories.

    “This mixture of weighted error variance is related formally to phenomenological cost functions proposed to account for movement trajectories (cf.Todorov and Jordan 1998;Nakano et al. 1999;Berret et al. 2008).”

    From Action and behavior: a free-energy formulation (2010) · cites this paper as Nakano et al. 1999

  • This mixture is formally similar to cost-functions in the motor-control literature that try to account for smooth motor trajectories observed empirically.

    “This mixture is formally similar to cost-functions in the motor-control literature that try to account for smooth motor trajectories that are observed empirically (Todorov and Jordan 1998;Nakano et al. 1999;Berret et al. 2008).”

    From Action and behavior: a free-energy formulation (2010) · cites this paper as Nakano et al. 1999

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nakano, E., Imamizu, H., Osu, R., Uno, Y., Gomi, H., Yoshioka, T., & Kawato, M.
Affiliations
  • Advanced Telecommunications Research Institute International (JP)
  • Japan Science and Technology Agency (JP)
  • Toyohashi University of Technology (JP)
  • NTT (Japan) (JP)
Venue
Journal of Neurophysiology
Published
1999-05-01
Volume
81
Issue
5
Pages
2140-2155
ISSN
  • 0022-3077 (ISSN-L)
  • 1522-1598
OpenAlex
W1873049249
Cited by
321
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 19 · 2013: 20 · 2012: 15
FWCI
5.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Neurophysiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Motor Control and Adaptation
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Control and Systems Engineering › Human Motion and Animation
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Muscle activation and electromyography studies
Keywords
trajectory curvature, via-points, muscle dynamics, arm kinematics
MeSH terms
Adult, Arm, Brain, Humans, Joints, Male, Models, Neurological, Movement, Physical Education and Training, Rotation, Time Factors, Torque

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