IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pcbi00/1009047.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Stochastic optimal feedforward-feedback control determines timing and variability of arm movements with or without vision

Author

Listed:
  • Bastien Berret
  • Adrien Conessa
  • Nicolas Schweighofer
  • Etienne Burdet

Abstract

Human movements with or without vision exhibit timing (i.e. speed and duration) and variability characteristics which are not well captured by existing computational models. Here, we introduce a stochastic optimal feedforward-feedback control (SFFC) model that can predict the nominal timing and trial-by-trial variability of self-paced arm reaching movements carried out with or without online visual feedback of the hand. In SFFC, movement timing results from the minimization of the intrinsic factors of effort and variance due to constant and signal-dependent motor noise, and movement variability depends on the integration of visual feedback. Reaching arm movements data are used to examine the effect of online vision on movement timing and variability, and test the model. This modelling suggests that the central nervous system predicts the effects of sensorimotor noise to generate an optimal feedforward motor command, and triggers optimal feedback corrections to task-related errors based on the available limb state estimate.Author summary: Stochastic optimal feedback control, which has been extensively used to model human motor control in the last two decades, proposes to compute an optimal motor command online based on an estimation of the current system state using sensory feedback. However, this modelling approach underestimates the role of motor plans to generate appropriate feedforward motor command before the movement starts, which is emphasized in conditions with large uncertainty about current limb state estimates such as when visual feedback is lacking. Here we propose a model combining stochastic feedforward and feedback control to address this issue. The new stochastic feedforward-feedback (SFFC) model considers effort and variance minimization as well as the effects of motor and sensory noise both on planning and execution of arm movements. By combining the feedforward and feedback aspects of stochastically optimal control in an elegant way, SFFC can predict the timing and variability of movements carried out with or without visual feedback, while previous models would fail in one or another aspect, or have to use ad hoc fixes.

Suggested Citation

  • Bastien Berret & Adrien Conessa & Nicolas Schweighofer & Etienne Burdet, 2021. "Stochastic optimal feedforward-feedback control determines timing and variability of arm movements with or without vision," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(6), pages 1-24, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pcbi00:1009047
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009047
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009047
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009047&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009047?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lionel Rigoux & Emmanuel Guigon, 2012. "A Model of Reward- and Effort-Based Optimal Decision Making and Motor Control," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(10), pages 1-13, October.
    2. Abdelhamid Kadiallah & David W Franklin & Etienne Burdet, 2012. "Generalization in Adaptation to Stable and Unstable Dynamics," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(10), pages 1-11, October.
    3. Bastien Berret & Frédéric Jean, 2020. "Stochastic optimal open-loop control as a theory of force and impedance planning via muscle co-contraction," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(2), pages 1-28, February.
    4. Robert J van Beers, 2008. "Saccadic Eye Movements Minimize the Consequences of Motor Noise," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 3(4), pages 1-8, April.
    5. Christopher M. Harris & Daniel M. Wolpert, 1998. "Signal-dependent noise determines motor planning," Nature, Nature, vol. 394(6695), pages 780-784, August.
    6. Etienne Burdet & Rieko Osu & David W. Franklin & Theodore E. Milner & Mitsuo Kawato, 2001. "The central nervous system stabilizes unstable dynamics by learning optimal impedance," Nature, Nature, vol. 414(6862), pages 446-449, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ian S Howard & David W Franklin, 2015. "Neural Tuning Functions Underlie Both Generalization and Interference," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-21, June.
    2. Ashesh Vasalya & Gowrishankar Ganesh & Abderrahmane Kheddar, 2018. "More than just co-workers: Presence of humanoid robot co-worker influences human performance," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(11), pages 1-19, November.
    3. Pierre Morel & Philipp Ulbrich & Alexander Gail, 2017. "What makes a reach movement effortful? Physical effort discounting supports common minimization principles in decision making and motor control," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(6), pages 1-23, June.
    4. Bastien Berret & Frédéric Jean, 2020. "Stochastic optimal open-loop control as a theory of force and impedance planning via muscle co-contraction," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(2), pages 1-28, February.
    5. H H L M Goossens & A J van Opstal, 2012. "Optimal Control of Saccades by Spatial-Temporal Activity Patterns in the Monkey Superior Colliculus," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(5), pages 1-18, May.
    6. Abdelhamid Kadiallah & David W Franklin & Etienne Burdet, 2012. "Generalization in Adaptation to Stable and Unstable Dynamics," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(10), pages 1-11, October.
    7. Robert J van Beers & Yor van der Meer & Richard M Veerman, 2013. "What Autocorrelation Tells Us about Motor Variability: Insights from Dart Throwing," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(5), pages 1-8, May.
    8. Shogo Yonekura & Yasuo Kuniyoshi, 2017. "Bodily motion fluctuation improves reaching success rate in a neurophysical agent via geometric-stochastic resonance," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(12), pages 1-16, December.
    9. Shih-Wei Wu & Maria F Dal Martello & Laurence T Maloney, 2009. "Sub-Optimal Allocation of Time in Sequential Movements," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(12), pages 1-13, December.
    10. Max Berniker & Megan K O’Brien & Konrad P Kording & Alaa A Ahmed, 2013. "An Examination of the Generalizability of Motor Costs," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(1), pages 1-11, January.
    11. Lionel Rigoux & Emmanuel Guigon, 2012. "A Model of Reward- and Effort-Based Optimal Decision Making and Motor Control," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(10), pages 1-13, October.
    12. Yanhao Ren & Qiang Luo & Wenlian Lu, 2023. "Synchronization Analysis of Linearly Coupled Systems with Signal-Dependent Noises," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-15, May.
    13. Jack Brookes & Faisal Mushtaq & Earle Jamieson & Aaron J Fath & Geoffrey Bingham & Peter Culmer & Richard M Wilkie & Mark Mon-Williams, 2020. "Exploring disturbance as a force for good in motor learning," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(5), pages 1-21, May.
    14. Christopher J Hasson & Zhaoran Zhang & Masaki O Abe & Dagmar Sternad, 2016. "Neuromotor Noise Is Malleable by Amplifying Perceived Errors," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(8), pages 1-28, August.
    15. Seth W. Egger & Stephen G. Lisberger, 2022. "Neural structure of a sensory decoder for motor control," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-13, December.
    16. Josh Merel & Donald M Pianto & John P Cunningham & Liam Paninski, 2015. "Encoder-Decoder Optimization for Brain-Computer Interfaces," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(6), pages 1-25, June.
    17. Maxime Teremetz & Isabelle Amado & Narjes Bendjemaa & Marie-Odile Krebs & Pavel G Lindberg & Marc A Maier, 2014. "Deficient Grip Force Control in Schizophrenia: Behavioral and Modeling Evidence for Altered Motor Inhibition and Motor Noise," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(11), pages 1-11, November.
    18. Frederic Danion & Raoul M Bongers & Reinoud J Bootsma, 2014. "The Trade-Off between Spatial and Temporal Variabilities in Reciprocal Upper-Limb Aiming Movements of Different Durations," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(5), pages 1-10, May.
    19. Wei Zhang & Sasha Reschechtko & Barry Hahn & Cynthia Benson & Elias Youssef, 2019. "Force-stabilizing synergies can be retained by coordinating sensory-blocked and sensory-intact digits," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(12), pages 1-17, December.
    20. Julian J Tramper & Bart van den Broek & Wim Wiegerinck & Hilbert J Kappen & Stan Gielen, 2012. "Time-Integrated Position Error Accounts for Sensorimotor Behavior in Time-Constrained Tasks," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(3), pages 1-10, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pcbi00:1009047. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ploscompbiol (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.