 |
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Previous Article | Next Article
The Journal of Neuroscience, January 1, 2000, 20(1):409-426
Rapid Correction of Aimed Movements by Summation of Force-Field Primitives
William J. Kargo and Simon F. Giszter Neurobiology Department, Medical College of Pennsylvania/Hahnemann University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19129
ABSTRACT
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
Spinal circuits form building blocks for movement construction. In the frog, such building blocks have been described as isometric force fields. Microstimulation studies showed that individual force fields can be combined by vector summation. Summation and scaling of a few force-field types can, in theory, produce a large range of dynamic force-field structures associated with limb behaviors. We tested for the first time whether force-field summation underlies the construction of real limb behavior in the frog. We examined the organization of correction responses that circumvent path obstacles during hindlimb wiping trajectories. Correction responses were triggered on-line during wiping by cutaneous feedback signaling obstacle collision. The correction response activated a force field that summed with an ongoing sequence of force fields activated during wiping. Both impact force and time of impact within the wiping motor pattern scaled the evoked correction response amplitude. However, the duration of the correction response was constant and similar to the duration of other muscles activated in different phases of wiping. Thus, our results confirm that both force-field summation and scaling occur during real limb behavior, that force fields represent fixed-timing motor elements, and that these motor elements are combined in chains and in combination contingent on the interaction of feedback and central motor programs.
Key words: force field; spinal cord; reflex; superposition; primitive; motor control
INTRODUCTION
The spinal cord of lower vertebrates and mammals may be organized into movement control modules (Grillner and Wallen, 1985
; Loeb, 1985
Spinal microstimulation provided the initial evidence that the frog spinal cord may be organized into modules that produce force-field primitives (Bizzi et al., 1991
Descending and segmental systems might recruit, scale, and sum force-field primitives in a manner similar to microstimulation (Bizzi et al., 1991
We therefore examined in this paper how force-field mechanisms might be used to generate and control limb behavior. Specifically, we examined how the targeted wiping reflex of the spinal frog is organized and how on-line trajectory corrections are achieved. We found that force-field primitives were recruited in chains and in combination to produce wiping trajectories and their on-line adjustments. Furthermore, each primitive exhibited a common activation waveform of constant duration. Taken together, our data suggest that constant-duration force-field primitives form building blocks for the construction of certain limb behaviors.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Surgery
Detailed surgical procedures have been outlined in previously published material (Giszter et al., 1993Experimental protocol and design
Fourteen frogs were used in these experiments. We tested the hindlimb-to-hindimb form of wiping. In this form, the wiping limb and target limb both move such that the stimulus and the ankle of the wiping limb (i.e., the wiping tool in this form) meet near the midline of the frog, just caudal to the cloaca [for detailed kinematic descriptions, see Giszter et al. (1989)Data collection
Limb kinematics, EMGs, and contact forces with the rod were recorded during free limb trials. Movements of the wiping and target limbs were videotaped at 60 fields per second perpendicular to the horizontal plane of the wiping movement. A light-emitting diode was triggered at the initiation of the wiping stimulus and allowed movements and EMGs to be synchronized within 1-16.67 msec. EMGs were amplified 1000× and bandpass-filtered (cutoffs 100 Hz and 10 kHz) using A-M Systems amplifiers (A-M Systems, Everett, WA). EMGs were analog-to-digital converted using a DAS16 A/D converter and stored on computer using custom-made software. Forces were sampled at 250 Hz, and EMGs were sampled at 1000 Hz. During isometric trials, forces generated at the ankle were recorded by using the same force/torque transducer to immobilize the ankle. Figure 1 shows the experimental conditions (with and without local cutaneous deafferentation) and the data types collected (free limb kinematics and isometric forces; EMGs were collected in both restrained and unrestrained trials).
View larger version (29K):[in this window]
[in a new window]
Figure 1. The hindlimb to hindlimb wiping trials described here were evoked in spinalized frogs in two conditions: with sensory feedback intact and with a local cutaneous deafferentation of the calf/foot of the wiping limb (shaded area). Wiping was evoked in all trials by electrical stimulation of the target limb (see Materials and Methods). Two data types were collected: isometric forces and free limb kinematics. Joint angles were measured as shown and converted to engineering format as needed (e.g., for torque calculations). In trials in which the wiping limb was free to move, kinematic data were recorded after the wiping was evoked. In trials in which the wiping limb was restrained, isometric forces were recorded at the ankle. Hindlimb muscle EMGs were recorded during both trial types (free limb and isometric) and during both conditions (feedback intact vs cutaneous deafferentation).
Data analysis
Kinematic analysis. We examined changes in the free limb kinematics that occurred during obstacle collision trials. The hip and knee joint locations of the wiping and target limbs (in the horizontal plane of the limb) were digitized from video recordings using a custom-designed program. The joint coordinates from the digitization procedure were imported into the S-Plus Statistics and Display package (Statistical Science, Seattle, WA). These were used to reconstruct movement of the thigh and calf and to derive the hip and knee joint angles over time. Hip angle was measured as the angle between the longitudinal axis of the frog and the thigh (Fig. 1). Knee angle was measured as the internal angle between the thigh and calf (Fig. 1). Because there was little variation in trial-to-trial duration of the wiping movement for an individual frog, time normalization was not necessary. Thus, averages and SDs of the hip and knee joint angles over time were constructed after simply aligning individual trials at the onset of movement for each condition. Force analysis (single limb position). We examined differences in the endpoint isometric forces generated during wiping trials and between conditions, i.e., when sensory feedback was intact and when skin regions contacting the ankle restraint were deafferented. We first examined differences in the direction and magnitude of force vectors generated at a single limb configuration. The direction and magnitude of the wiping force vectors were calculated for a 3 sec period after the reflex was evoked (wiping motor pattern typically lasted 600-1000 msec). Endpoint polar force direction was calculated in the plane of the limb (positive x-axis at 0°, longitudinal axis of frog at 90°) from the measured endpoint force at time (t) by:
where Fy and Fx are the recorded horizontal force components over time. The magnitude of the force vectors was calculated by:
(1)
Averages and SDs of the force direction and magnitude at each time point after initiation of wiping were constructed by aligning individual trials at the onset of force. The onset of force for each trial was determined after the averaged baseline force (200 msec before wiping was initiated) was subtracted from the force record. Both force direction and magnitude were determined for active forces, i.e., when resting, baseline forces were subtracted. On the basis of analysis of EMG patterns (see EMG analysis), we believed that feedback caused by skin contact with the ankle restraint initiated a corrective response during isometric wiping trials. We tested whether correction responses recruited an isometric force-field primitive and whether this primitive was simply superimposed on the underlying wiping forces. According to the definition used in this paper, a force-field primitive is observed as a structurally invariant force field over time. In its most general form, a force-field primitive would be a function of both position and velocity. In this paper, we confine ourselves to isometric force measurements at which velocity is always zero. Other experiments [for preliminary description, see Giszter et al. (2000)
(2) (r) (Eq. 3). That is to say, a constant structure force field is scaled in amplitude through time in a similar way at all locations. To derive the endpoint forces generated by the evoked correction response under the hypothesis that force-field primitives comprised the wiping and corrective patterns, we therefore proceeded as follows. We subtracted the averaged force vectors generated during wiping trials alone, i.e., after cutaneous deafferentation, from the averaged force vectors generated during wiping trials with an evoked correction response, i.e., with cutaneous feedback intact:
(3)
(4)
where FC(r,t) represents the total forces generated in a corrected wipe over time (t) at configuration (r) with cutaneous feedback intact. This field is minimally composed of a sum of primitives
(5) (r) and
where lt and lc are lengths of the thigh and calf and
(6) h and
where "
(7) " represents the inner product of two vectors. Ft and Ft+m denote the two resultant force vectors that are compared at times t and t + m at N locations x1, x2, ... xN. The cosine of the angle between the two sampled fields is calculated:
where:
(8)
represents the norm of a sampled force field. If the correction is generated by a field, which can be expressed in the form of Equation 5 above, then at two chosen time points (t) and (t + m):
(9)
(10)
because the scalars b(t) and b(t + m) determining force magnitude do not affect the result of the cosine operator in Equation 8. The value of 1 indicates that the two fields tested are simply scaled versions of one another. If the value of the cosine measure from Equation 8 was 0.9 for two test fields, these were considered to have a similar force-field structure, as described in Mussa-Ivaldi et al. (1994)
RESULTS
Kinematic observations of the trajectory correction response
We first analyzed the kinematic features of corrective responses during the hindlimb-to-hindlimb form of wiping. These corrections have never been described in any detail. This kinematic analysis will form the basis of subsequent analyses. In this form of wiping, when an irritant is applied to the foot of the target limb, the wiping limb attempts to reach and remove this stimulus. Figure 2A shows the normal, free limb kinematics of the wiping and target limbs (i.e., the thigh and calf of each limb) after we evoked this reflex behavior using our standard electrical stimulation (500 msec duration, 2 msec biphasic pulses, 33 Hz, 5 V). The ankle of the wiping limb followed a fairly direct trajectory to a region caudal to the cloaca where target limb contact occurred. In the trial shown, target limb contact occurred 233 msec after the onset of wiping limb movement. After contact with the stimulus on the target limb, the ankle of the wiping limb followed a trajectory that was directed away from the body of the frog. This final portion of the trajectory ["whisk"; see Berkinblit et al. (1986)
View larger version (32K):[in this window]
[in a new window]
Figure 2. Path obstacles evoked trajectory correction responses during hindlimb wiping movements. A-D, Digitized stick figures of the wiping and target limbs (thigh and calf) and the ankle path of both limbs (traced by a bold line; arrows mark direction of movement along path) are shown after initiation of the wiping reflex in four experimental manipulations. Each stick figure is separated in time from the next by 16.67 msec ( sec). Bold stick figures mark the initial limb configurations and their configuration at target limb contact. The frog's body would be above each stick figure. A, The unobstructed kinematics of the wiping limb with feedback intact consisted of a knee flexion and hip extension that resulted in the ankle moving along a trajectory directed to a midline region of stimulus contact. A final knee extension ("whisk") occurred on stimulus contact. B, When the wiping limb collided with a path obstacle en route to stimulus contact, a hip flexion was evoked that enabled the limb to clear the obstacle. Once clear there was an enhanced knee flexion. Target limb contact occurred at a similar midline site and at a time similar to unobstructed trials (see Results). C, After local removal of cutaneous feedback from the wiping limb, unobstructed free limb kinematics showed no apparent differences from the kinematics seen with feedback intact (compare A, C). D, When obstacles were placed in the path of the locally deafferented limb, corrective responses were no longer evoked, and the limb was driven further into the obstacle (compare B, D).
Spinal frogs exhibited trajectory correction responses when obstacles were placed in the movement path of the wiping limb. In Figure 2B such a trial is shown. The trajectory of the ankle, after contact with the obstacle, was redirected toward the head of the frog. This rostral redirection of the ankle trajectory was caused by a hip flexion, which was not seen in the unimpeded movement. Once clear of the obstacle, there was an enhanced knee flexion, and the ankle trajectory exhibited an increased velocity toward the target region (compare distance between digitized ankle positions). Interestingly, the time of target limb contact as determined from the video record was similar to the unimpeded trial. In the frog shown in Figure 2, the averaged difference in the time of target limb contact between unimpeded and impeded wiping trials (in successful obstacle avoidance) was only 30 msec.
In this portion of the study we examined nine frogs that all exhibited successful correction responses when path obstacles were placed close to the ankle of the wiping limb, i.e., with obstacles placed ~2-3 cm or less from the initial position of the ankle. The straight-line distance from the initial position of the ankle to the site of target limb contact ranged from 10 to 13 cm for the nine frogs. In each frog, two common kinematic features characterized successful correction responses (Figs. 2, 3A,B, bottom panels): (1) an evoked hip flexion that allowed the ankle to clear the obstacle and (2) an enhanced knee flexion once the obstacle was cleared. The enhanced knee flexion allowed the limb to extend at the hip without further collision and also resulted in an increased ankle velocity toward the target region. Taken together, these effects acted to maintain target limb contact times that were close to contact times in unimpeded wiping trials. In five of nine frogs there was only a small increase of ~30 msec (significant at p < 0.05) in the mean latency to target limb contact (mean of 283 ± 20 msec SD with path obstacles compared with 250 ± 13 msec SD without obstacles) (Table 1). Thus, although there was a small and significant difference, these frogs were able to maintain contact times within the extremes of the range of variations seen during unobstructed trials. However, in the other four frogs there were larger increases (p < 0.01) in the mean latency to target limb contact after movement initiation (mean 316 ± 25 msec SD with path obstacles compared with 245 ± 12 msec SD without). The increased latency to target limb contact in these four frogs was mainly attributable to an increase in the time to clear the obstacle (mean duration of 125 msec in contact with the obstacle in this group compared with a mean duration of 66 msec in the five frogs with almost normal movement durations).
View larger version (43K):[in this window]
[in a new window]
Figure 3. Wiping motor patterns and evoked correction responses were similar for free limb and isometric trials. Rectified EMGs are shown for six wiping limb muscles after the wiping reflex was evoked in four separate conditions: (A) unobstructed free limb trial, (B) free limb trial with obstacle collision, (C) isometric trial, and (D) isometric trial after local cutaneous deafferentation of the wiping limb. Below the EMG panels in A and B are shown obstacle contact forces and hip and knee joint kinematics (in A, there was no obstacle collision). First and second vertical lines mark movement onset and target limb contact, respectively. Below the EMG panels in C and D are shown the recorded ankle force components (Fx, Fy, and Fz) and the derived hip and knee torques. A, The wiping motor pattern consisted of three phases: initial knee flexor (ST), subsequent hip extensor (RI), and final knee extensor (VE) activation. Hip flexors (IL) exhibited phasic activity near the time of stimulus contact. B, The timing of wiping motor phases was unaltered by obstacle collision. Hip flexor muscles (IL, GL, and SA) showed a strong synchronous activation after obstacle contact (see contact force) that ended near the onset of RI. Their activation was associated with a reversal of hip joint motion to flexion. After obstacle clearance there was an enhanced knee flexion and resumed hip extension. C, The time of onset of knee flexor (ST) and hip extensor phases (RI) was unaltered during isometric trials. The knee extensor phase (VE) was absent. Hip flexor muscles showed a strong activation after the onset of force, which represented the correction response that ended near the onset of RI. The time of hip flexor activation was associated with production of a hip flexor torque (bolded line below), whereas RI activation was associated with the onset of hip extensor torques. D, The time of onset of knee flexor and hip extensor phases was unaltered after local cutaneous deafferentation. Hip flexor activity and hip flexor torque associated with the correction response were eliminated by the deafferentation.
View this table: [in this window]
[in a new window]
Table 1. Target-to-target limb contact The movement path of the contralateral (i.e., target) limb did not exhibit any major differences during wiping trials with and without the path obstacle (Fig. 2), and in this study, we focus only on corrective changes within the wiping limb.
Trajectory correction responses are evoked by cutaneous feedback
The sensory basis of the evoked correction response in frogs has not been described. Muscle, joint, or skin feedback could all contribute to initiating and controlling the response. We determined that the correction response in the wiping limb was initiated primarily by feedback from cutaneous receptors. We could demonstrate this by local removal of cutaneous feedback from the calf and foot of the wiping limb alone (see Materials and Methods). The successful correction responses depended on cutaneous feedback stemming from the obstacle collision. In the frog shown in Figure 2, after cutaneous deafferentation, the wiping limb did not exhibit a successful corrective response and was in fact driven further into the path obstacle by the extending hip.
Cutaneous feedback, although necessary for evoking successful correction responses, was not necessary for controlling the unimpeded free limb trajectory. In Figure 2C, the unimpeded kinematics of the wiping limb are shown after the local cutaneous deafferentation. The kinematics of the wiping limb did not exhibit any major differences, e.g., in the latency to target limb contact (233 msec), in its position at target limb contact (knee angle 50°, hip angle 42°), and in the shape of the endpoint path, from the trials in which cutaneous feedback was intact [see also Kargo and Giszter (2000)
To show that loss of corrections was not attributable to nonspecific effects of the loss of cutaneous feedback, we performed a second series of experiments. Rather than using cutaneous deafferentation, we used bone pins placed in the tibia to immobilize the limb during the wiping reflex just as an obstacle would, but without skin contact. At the same time, skin sensory fields were largely undisturbed. We were unable to initiate corrective EMGs during isometric holds (see below) in this arrangement in the absence of cutaneous contact. However, true collisions evoked corrections. These approaches allowed us to manipulate wiping and corrective responses in isometric experiments.
Basis for isometric examination of wiping and correction responses
In the following sections, we tested whether the observed correction response forces FC(r,t) were generated by the on-line superposition of a structurally invariant, corrective force field with an underlying wiping force field. Specifically:
where FN represents the normal pattern of forces over time (t) at position (r) activated by the skin stimulus on the contralateral limb and FR represents the force-field primitive activated by ipsilateral obstacle contact. To test this hypothesis we recorded the endpoint isometric forces generated during wiping and trajectory correction responses. Previous studies have shown that forces and EMGs appropriate for wiping can be evoked in the isometric limb (Giszter et al., 1993
(11) Free limb EMG patterns generated during wiping and trajectory corrections
We first examined the basic motor pattern that occurs during free limb wiping trials. The normal wiping motor pattern consisted of three periods of muscle activity (for detailed analysis, also see Kargo and Giszter (2000)
A specific group of hindlimb muscles was commonly activated in response to obstacle collision during free limb wiping trials. With obstacles placed 2-3 cm from the initial position of the ankle, collisions occurred during the initial knee flexor phase (see contact force below EMGs in Fig. 3B). In the frog shown in Figure 3A,B, a group of hip flexor-related muscles (IL and GL, monoarticular hip flexors, and SA, a hip/knee flexor) were reflexively activated ~15 msec after obstacle contact. The duration of their activation was ~150 msec. The reflex activation of these muscles did not appear to interfere with or cause variation of the onset times of subsequent wiping motor phases (see section entitled Correction responses are generated by addition of a muscle synergy to the basic pattern and Table 2). None of the comparisons of motor pattern latency differed significantly between correction and free limb, unobstructed trials.
View this table: [in this window]
[in a new window]
Table 2. Latency in milliseconds of the first two motor phases of wiping in four different conditions Motor patterns are similar under isometric conditions
After evoking a series of free limb wiping trials in each frog, we immobilized the wiping limb using our ankle restraint. This apparatus allowed us to examine isometric forces and force-field patterns. We again recorded EMGs and also isometric forces generated at the ankle after evoking the wiping reflex. We found that the initial knee flexor phase and the subsequent hip extensor phases of the wiping motor pattern were initiated in all frogs and remained similar to free limb patterns (see Fig. 3C, restrained trial, and compare with Fig. 3B, free limb trial with correction). The hip extensor phase maintained a similar time of onset relative to knee flexor onset in eight of nine frogs (Table 2). With the exception of bf74, the ST to RI latency did not differ significantly between free limb, correction, and isometric tests. However, in the majority of frogs (eight of nine), the usual, final phase of knee extensor activation was absent (Fig. 3C,D). In the one exception, the knee extensor phase was much reduced, although present. Loss of knee extensor activation was often associated with a more abrupt termination of knee flexor and hip extensor EMG activity (compare ST and RI EMGs in Fig. 3C,D, isometric, with Fig. 3A,B, free limb). The lack of the knee extensor burst representing initiation of the final motor phase suggests that either triggering or aborting of this phase of the motor program may occur based on successful or unsuccessful achievement of target limb contact and/or a specific wiping limb configuration. These observations are compatible with the kinematic observations reported in Giszter et al. (1989)
We also examined the EMGs recorded during isometric wiping trials to assess whether the ankle restraint evoked a correction response during wiping. The ankle restraint was placed in contact with the same skin areas (~2-3 mm above the ankle) upon which obstacle collision occurred during the free limb trials. We found that the same hip flexor-related muscles that were activated after obstacle collision during free limb wiping were activated during isometric wiping in our tested frogs. In the frog shown in Figure 3C,D, these hip flexor muscles were activated during the initial knee flexor phase, ~90 msec after ST onset and 65 msec after force onset (average onset time of 55 ± 11 msec relative to first measured force onset for the nine frogs taken together). The evoked EMG activity always ended close to the onset of the hip extensor phase. In fact, in eight of nine frogs of this study, the duration of activation of these muscles during isometric trials was similar to their duration of activation during collisions in free limb trials, e.g., the averaged duration of the evoked IL EMG during free limb trials was 154 ± 16 msec, whereas in isometric trials it was 165 ± 20 msec (Table 2) (p > 0.1).
In addition to the EMG similarities, correction responses initiated during isometric wiping could be abolished by cutaneous deafferentation (Fig. 3D), similar to free limb trials. The deafferentation eliminated pertinent skin feedback caused by contact with the ankle restraint. In the frog shown in Figure 3D, the IL, SA, and GL EMGs no longer exhibited a strong, phasic activation after cutaneous deafferentation. However, the knee flexor and hip extensor phases of the wiping motor pattern were clearly unaffected and had similar onset and offset times. An examination of the derived hip and knee torques generated during isometric trials showed the torque patterns produced when cutaneous feedback was intact and when this feedback was eliminated by the deafferentation procedure (Fig. 3C,D, bottom panels). With feedback intact, a hip flexor torque was initiated soon after the initial knee flexor torque and was associated with the onset of IL, GL, and SA. After removal of cutaneous feedback, this strong hip flexor torque was absent, as were the enhanced activities of IL, GL, and SA. The wiping motor pattern also involved a substantial z-direction force (Fig. 3C,D). Variations in the z-force associated with corrections were small (Fig. 3, compare C and D, Fz).
In summary, our analysis showed that wiping motor patterns can be initiated in the isometric limb, and these differ primarily only in amplitude from free limb EMGs. The first two phases of the motor pattern, the initial knee flexor (ST and BI) and subsequent hip extensor (RI, SM and AD) phases, had similar onset times as in the free limb. A different report (Giszter et al., 2000
In the following sections we exploit our observation that wiping and correction motor patterns appear conserved in the isometric limb. We used this to test the hypothesis that on-line superposition of force fields underlies the generation of trajectory corrections during wiping. We test this first at a single limb position and then at multiple limb positions.
Superposition of isometric endpoint forces underlies trajectory corrections
We examined the endpoint forces generated during wiping trials with cutaneous feedback intact, i.e., when correction responses were evoked, and after cutaneous deafferentation at a single, standard limb position (hip 90°, knee 105°) in nine frogs. In each frog, when cutaneous feedback was intact we observed a temporal pattern of endpoint forces similar to those shown in Figure 4B. We plotted both the angular directions and amplitudes of force vectors over time. Figure 4C shows the directions, expressed as an angle, over time in each condition. Figure 4D shows the magnitudes. We also expressed the angular variations of force direction as distributions in circular histograms (Fig. 5). In the frog shown in Figure 4B, the force vectors generated by the wiping limb after evoking the wiping reflex were initially directed toward the midline (~160°), where target limb contact normally occurs, and remained in this direction for ~75 msec (Fig. 4B, WCF). The forces then began to rotate toward the head of the frog over the next 150 msec. This continuous rostral rotation immediately followed the activation of IL, a hip flexor, and SA, a hip/knee flexor (averaged period of activations shown in Fig. 4E as bars). At the onset of the hip extensor burst (RI), the endpoint forces rotated in an opposite direction, away from the frog, and back toward and through the target region. They stabilized at a final direction of ~260° (measured counterclockwise and relative to horizontal, 0°) (Fig. 4C).
View larger version (25K):[in this window]
[in a new window]
Figure 4. Cutaneous reflex pathways recruited a fixed-direction force component that summed with an underlying sequence of forces generated during wiping. In this figure, time is referenced to stimulus onset. A, Force vectors in B are plotted with respect to the frog shown. Thus, vectors pointing to the left of the page are pointing to the midline of the frog. The force vector shown here represents the scale for B. Vector directions in C and Figures 5 and 6 are referenced relative to the axes in this panel. B, Isometric force vectors are shown at 20 msec intervals after initiation of wiping for two conditions (top two rows; WCF, with feedback intact; NCF, no cutaneous feedback). Forces in each condition represent an average of seven trials. In a correction response (WCF), force vectors were initially directed to the midline, rotated rostrally toward the hip, and then rotated back to and through the midline to caudal directions. In the absence of a correction (NCF), force vectors were initially directed to the midline for 200 msec and then rotated caudally. In the third row, vectors, C, produced by a subtraction of NCF vectors from WCF vectors are shown. These vectors represent the correction response. Note that these appear uniformly directed. C, Angular directions (see A) of the force vectors for the two conditions and for the correction vectors are shown at 4 msec intervals. In all trials (WCF and NCF), force vectors were initially similarly directed to 180°. In corrections (WCF), force vectors rotated to ~140°, whereas NCF vectors remained fixed in direction. In both cases (WCF and NCF), force vectors then rotated caudally at around the same time to a direction of 260°. Corrective, C, vectors as noted in B remained stable in time. D, Vector magnitudes are shown over time. With no correction (NCF), force vectors exhibited a biphasic pattern of growth. Each phase is associated with a period of fixed-direction force production as shown in B. In corrections (WCF), initial phase of vector growth is increased because of the summation of C vectors along a similar direction. The second phase is decreased because correction and wiping vectors are oppositely directed. C vectors show a monotonic increase and decline. E, Bar plots representing the averaged period of activation of ST, RI, IL, and SA EMGs are shown. The horizontal bars at each end represent ±1 SD. With feedback intact, the onset of IL and SA activation was associated with the onset of the rostral force rotation. After cutaneous deafferentation, IL and SA activation were absent, as was the rostral rotation of forces. RI onset was similar in both conditions and associated with the onset of caudally rotated forces.
View larger version (37K):[in this window]
[in a new window]
Figure 5. Corrective force components are directionally stable. A-C, Circular histograms of the directions of force vectors generated over wiping in five trials (600 msec duration trials, 250 Hz sampling rate; thus ~750 samples total) are shown for each condition: with feedback and correction response (A) and without cutaneous feedback or a correction response (B). The derived corrective vectors are shown in C. Each bin represents 12°. See D for orientation of the circular histograms to the frog's body and wiping limb. A, With feedback intact, vector directions exhibited two clusters: an initial cluster directed toward the midline and a second cluster directed away from the frog. The first cluster was broadly spread and spanned four bins. B, Without cutaneous feedback, the initial cluster of vector directions was more focally distributed to the midline, i.e., mainly in one bin (78-90°), whereas the second cluster of forces was similar to that with feedback intact (252-264°). C, Corrective vectors were obtained by subtracting time-matched forces in B from A. The directions of the corrective vectors clustered tightly in a single bin from 108 to 120° and were directed to the hip joint. Thus, the corrective vectors summed with the initial set of wiping vectors directed to the midline and resulted in the rostral spread of these midline-directed force clusters when feedback was intact.
After local removal of cutaneous feedback, the pattern of forces generated by the wiping limb consisted of only two sequentially activated and uniformly directed force components (Fig. 4B, NCF). These could correspond to stable force fields in each phase. In the absence of a corrective response, the initial forces after the wiping reflex was evoked grew in magnitude along a uniform direction (~160°) for ~200 msec (Fig. 4B,C). As the hip extensor burst was activated, the forces rotated away from the frog and reached a second set of uniformly directed forces (~260°) for the remainder of the period of RI activation. There was no period of IL/SA activation and no corresponding rostral rotation of endpoint forces without cutaneous feedback.
We analyzed the distribution of the force directions expressed as angles (as in Fig. 4C) that were generated during wiping trials both with and without cutaneous feedback intact. After cutaneous deafferentation, i.e., no correction response, the force directions clustered into two discrete subgroups (Fig. 5B). The forces in the initial (midline-directed) subgroup were contained mainly within a single 12° bin directed to 168-180° (mean direction of 175 ± 5 SD). Forces in the second (caudally directed) subgroup were mainly contained within two bins directed to 252-276° (mean direction of 261 ± 7 SD). When feedback was intact (Fig. 5A), the initial subgroup of forces directed toward the midline was more broadly distributed than the corresponding initial subgroup of forces produced when cutaneous feedback was removed (average direction of 156 ± 13 SD) (Fig. 5A). The subsequent caudal subgroup of forces with feedback intact was similarly directed to the corresponding caudal subgroup produced with cutaneous feedback removed, although the variance was greater (mean direction of 258 ± 13 SD).
We hypothesized (Eq. 10; also see Eq. 4 and 5) that differences in the variance and direction of the initial subgroup of forces produced with and without cutaneous feedback intact were caused by differences in the contribution of two fixed-direction force components (i.e., of low directional variance). When cutaneous feedback was intact, a corrective force component was activated and summed through time with an initial wiping component. This summation resulted in the rostral rotation and increased variance of the midline-directed force vectors. To test this, we subtracted the time series of force vectors that were generated when cutaneous feedback was removed from the force vectors that were generated at the corresponding times with feedback intact. We examined the time-varying pattern of resultant (corrective) forces, i.e., direction and magnitude. These are shown in Figure 4B-D (series marked C). In the frog shown in Figures 4 and 5, the corrective force vectors exhibited a monophasic increase and decrease in amplitude and were uniformly directed to ~115° during the period of IL/SA activation (Fig. 4C,D). The distribution of the corrective force directions over time showed low variance (Fig. 5C). Eighty-one percent of the corrective vectors (n = 675 vectors; 5 trials × 135 force samples; 540 msec long trials) were contained in a single bin (118-130°). The mean direction was 120°, and the SD was only 3°.
To summarize, cutaneous feedback triggered the activation of a fixed-direction force component associated with a correction response. This corrective component summed with an ongoing force component produced during the initial phase of wiping. The subsequent onset of the hip extensor phase of wiping was associated with the production of a final, fixed-direction force component. Thus these data indicate that three fixed-direction force components are activated both synchronously and sequentially to generate correction responses during wiping. This applies to isometric conditions and when testing at a single configuration.
We examined how the force component recruited during correction responses varied among frogs. Polar plots of the distributions of corrective force directions are shown for four frogs in Figure 6A. The limb posture at which the wiping trials were evoked is shown in the inset of Figure 6A (90° hip and 105° knee angles) and was the same for each frog. For six of nine frogs tested, a large percentage (>80%) of the corrective forces over time (and for multiple trials) were contained in a single bin. For each of these frogs, the variance of the corrective force directions was <12°. In addition to the uniformity of corrective force directions over time for each frog, the corrective vectors were similarly directed among frogs (the modal bin for all frogs lay within a 30° segment).
View larger version (25K):[in this window]
[in a new window]
Figure 6. Cutaneous reflex pathways that signal obstacle contact recruited similar corrective force components among frogs. A, Circular histograms of the directions of corrective forces over time are shown for four frogs (obtained as described in Figs. 4 and 5 and Materials and Methods). For each frog, the collection of corrective force directions clustered mainly within one bin and the modal bins for each frog in the group were localized within a 36° segment (from 84 to 120°). B, The averaged corrective hip and knee torques are shown for each of the four frogs shown in A. Knee and hip torques are normalized to the maximal hip torque produced for each frog. For each frog, the corrective forces were produced by a multi-joint torque response. In addition, in each frog the knee to hip torque ratios were constant over time (linear up to the peak corrective force). The small variability among frogs in the direction of corrective forces was related to the magnitude of the ratio of knee flexor torque to hip flexor torque, and in some frogs (bf65) also to the direction of the knee torque component, e.g., extensor versus flexor.
The other three frogs showed deletions of the extensor phase. Extensor phase deletions will not be further pursued here but are reported in more detail in Giszter and Kargo (2000)
A hip flexion torque was primarily responsible for generating the corrective endpoint forces. Figure 6B shows the balance of corrective knee torque versus hip torque, displayed from the onset of corrective force up to the peak corrective force. In each frog, there was an almost constant ratio of hip flexion torque to knee torque over time. This constant joint torque ratio resulted in the uniformly directed corrective forces. However, the direction (flexor vs extensor) and relative magnitude of the corrective knee torque exhibited some variability among frogs (knee torques are normalized to peak hip torque in Fig. 6B). In four of six frogs, a corrective knee flexion torque accompanied the hip flexion torque. In the other two frogs, there was a small knee extensor torque component. This variability may be related to differences among frogs in the coactivation of other muscles in addition to monoarticular hip flexors (IL and GL) during correction responses. For instance, SA, a hip flexor/knee flexor, and RA, a hip flexor/knee extensor, were both commonly activated during corrective responses. The balance of these muscles' activations would then determine the resulting knee torque. We examine in more detail the EMGs underlying corrective responses (in the sections entitled Correction responses are generated by addition of a muscle synergy to the basic pattern and Muscles recruited during correction responses exhibit covariation).
Superposition of isometric force fields underlies trajectory corrections
Although the correction responses at a single location showed clear superposition of forces, this guarantees nothing about the forces generated at other configurations or the stability over time of a force-field primitive. We therefore examined the force fields generated during wiping trials with and without cutaneous feedback intact, i.e., with and without evoked correction responses. Force fields were constructed by measuring the isometric forces generated at a range of initial limb positions. Thus, force-field measurements describe the configuration-dependent effects of both muscle actions and changes in muscle activation (caused by changes in proprioceptive feedback). Conceivably, responses might differ radically across the workspace, and field structure might be complex or divergent.
In Figure 7, a time series of force fields generated by the wiping limb with cutaneous feedback intact (Fig. 7A) and after cutaneous deafferentation (Fig. 7B) are shown for one frog. The force fields were initially similar between conditions. Approximately 90 msec after the onset of force, the force fields began to exhibit apparent differences. With feedback, intact force fields rotated rostrally toward the hip joint, whereas force fields produced with no cutaneous feedback continued to grow in magnitude and remained directed toward the midline region of stimulus contact. The time points at which the force fields are shown, i.e., 130-330 msec at 40 msec intervals, are marked as successive vertical lines on an EMG record collected at a single, central location in the workspace (Fig. 7; EMG record to the right of each force-field series). The EMG record includes four muscles that represent the knee flexor phase (BI), the hip extensor phase (RI), and the corrective response (IL and RA). The alteration in force-field structure between conditions was associated with the reflex activation of IL and RA when feedback was intact, i.e., a correction response.
View larger version (56K):[in this window]
[in a new window]
Figure 7. Cutaneous reflex pathways signaling obstacle contact recruited a corrective force field that summed with an underlying force-field sequence produced during wiping. Time series of force fields are shown after initiation of wiping both with feedback intact and after cutaneous deafferentation. A typical EMG pattern of representative muscles associated with field generation is shown to the right of each time series. For the fields, a single vector represents the force generated at that position at the specified latency after wiping initiation. The black dot marks the location of the hip joint. The lightly shaded ellipse indicates the region of contact with the target limb in free limb trials. A, With feedback intact, force fields were initially directed to the midline where target limb contact normally occurred (bold line overlaid on the 130 msec field shows the unrestrained ankle path up to limb contact. At 210 msec up to 330 msec, force fields rotated rostrally toward the hip and away from the target region. At 330 msec, force fields began to rotate back to the target region. The hip extensor burst began around this time (see EMG record to the right; rectified EMGs from BI knee flexor, RI hip extensor, and IL/RA-hip flexors are shown for a single trial taken from the middle of the workspace). B, After removal of cutaneous feedback, initial force fields were directed to the midline. Subsequent fields (210-330 msec) converged to the target region and did not rotate to the hip joint. The strong IL/RA activation was absent without cutaneous feedback (see EMGs to the right). At 330 msec, the field began to rotate caudally because of hip extensor activation. C, Procedure used to produce corrective force fields. Time-matched fields in B were subtracted from corresponding fields in A. The procedure was performed at each time point after wiping initiation. D, Corrective fields are shown at three times, at 40 msec intervals. Corrective fields were structurally similar (similarity measures > 0.95) over a 100 msec period starting shortly after IL EMG onset. These rostrally directed fields summed with the underlying wiping force fields.
We hypothesized that the alteration in force-field structure was caused by the reflex activation and superposition of a structurally invariant corrective field on a wiping field. To examine the time-varying structure of the corrective force fields, we subtracted vector fields between conditions (feedback intact fields
feedback removed fields; procedure graphically represented in Fig. 7C). In Figure 7D, corrective fields are shown at three successive time points (130, 170, and 210 msec after force onset). We used a correlation method to examine the similarity of corrective force fields over a 200 msec interval (IL and RA were activated for ~200 msec) starting at 90 msec after force onset [see Materials and Methods, Mussa-Ivaldi et al. (1994)
In summary, we addressed configuration-based variations in forces and corrective responses by measuring entire force fields. Examination of these force fields showed that trajectory corrections were generated by a dynamically evolving force-field structure. Our subtraction procedure showed that this dynamic force-field evolution was generated by combining the force-field primitive evoked in the correction response with the force-field primitives associated with the wiping reflex.
Correction responses are generated by addition of a muscle synergy to the basic pattern
The data above suggest that cutaneous feedback triggered the activation of a force-field primitive. This corrective force field sums with and does not disrupt the underlying wiping force-field sequence. In this section, we examine directly whether muscle activation triggered by obstacle collision sums with and does not disrupt the ongoing wiping motor pattern.
We found that two to three hip flexor-related muscles were activated in response to obstacle collision in each of the nine frogs tested in free limb conditions. The activation of these muscles was added to and did not interfere with the underlying motor pattern (Table 2; see list of reflexly activated muscles). In Figure 8A,B, rectified, filtered, and averaged EMGs (n = 11 trials per condition) are shown for one frog during unobstructed, free limb wiping trials (bold lines, thin lines, 1 SD above and below average, respectively) and for obstacle collision trials, respectively (similar convention). The obstacle was placed next to but not touching the wip
