Skip to main content

Umbrella menu

  • SfN.org
  • eNeuro
  • The Journal of Neuroscience
  • Neuronline
  • BrainFacts.org

Main menu

  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Collections
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
    • Preparing a Manuscript
    • Submission Guidelines
    • Fees
    • Journal Club
    • eLetters
    • Submit
  • EDITORIAL BOARD
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Advertise
    • For the Media
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Feedback
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • SfN.org
  • eNeuro
  • The Journal of Neuroscience
  • Neuronline
  • BrainFacts.org

User menu

  • Log in
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Neuroscience
  • Log in
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
Journal of Neuroscience

Advanced Search

Submit a Manuscript
  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Collections
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
    • Preparing a Manuscript
    • Submission Guidelines
    • Fees
    • Journal Club
    • eLetters
    • Submit
  • EDITORIAL BOARD
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Advertise
    • For the Media
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Feedback
  • SUBSCRIBE
PreviousNext
Articles, Behavioral/Systems/Cognitive

Evidence for the Flexible Sensorimotor Strategies Predicted by Optimal Feedback Control

Dan Liu and Emanuel Todorov
Journal of Neuroscience 29 August 2007, 27 (35) 9354-9368; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1110-06.2007
Dan Liu
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Emanuel Todorov
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Figure 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 1.

    a, Average hand paths in experiment 1. The vertical marks show where the hand was at each perturbation time. Trajectory averaging was done as follows. The trajectory data from each individual trial were smoothed with a cubic spline (“csaps” function in the Matlab Spline Toolbox, smoothing parameter 0.001), and resampled at 100 points equally spaced in time. Analytical derivatives of the cubic spline were also computed at these 100 points, yielding velocities and accelerations. The resampled data were averaged separately in each condition. b, Tangential speed profiles for the hand paths shown in a. c, Corrective (forward) movement. The backward-perturbed trials have been mirrored around the horizontal axis and pooled with the corresponding forward-perturbed trials. The color code is the same as given in the legend in a. d, Undershoot, defined as endpoint error in the direction indicated in the plot. SEs are computed as described in Materials and Methods. e, Positional variance of the hand trajectories in unperturbed trials. Variances at each point in time are computed separately for each subject (from the resampled data), and then averaged over subjects, and the square root is plotted. f, Acceleration in the forward direction. For each perturbation time, the corresponding curve is aligned on the time when forward acceleration reached 5% of peak forward acceleration. g, Movement duration. h, Percentage of time-out errors, as signaled during the experiment. Note that for data analysis purposes, we increased the threshold on movement duration by 100 ms.

  • Figure 2.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 2.

    a–e, Same as the corresponding subplots of Figure 1, but for data generated by our optimal feedback control model. The dashed lines in c show predictions of a different optimal control model, in which movement duration is not adjusted when a perturbation arises. There is no dashed line for the 100 ms perturbation (red), because in that condition subjects did not increase the movement duration. f, Corrective movements predicted by the modified minimum-jerk model.

  • Figure 3.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 3.

    a, c, Optimal feedback gains, each scaled by its maximum value. The stop condition is shown in a; the hit condition is shown in c. b, Corrective movements predicted by the optimal feedback controller in the hit condition. d, Velocity of the corrective movements predicted in the hit condition. Note that velocity is not reduced to zero at the end of the movement, especially for the 300 ms perturbation. e, SD of the undershoot in the model and all three experiments. The SD was computed separately for each subject and perturbation time, and then averaged over subjects (by the ANOVA procedure) (see Materials and Methods). In unperturbed trials (“none”), we computed variability along the perturbation axis for the corresponding experiment, although these trials were unperturbed.

  • Figure 4.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 4.

    a, Setup for experiment 2. Subjects make a movement from the starting position receptacle to a target attached to the robot, while clearing a horizontal obstacle (bookshelf). The robot may displace the target by 9 cm left or right during the movement. b, Average hand paths in the stop condition of experiment 2. Trajectory averaging was done in a way similar to experiment 1, except that we now used a zero-phase-lag fourth-order Butterworth filter. The color code is the same as before: black, baseline; red, early perturbation; blue, late perturbation. c, Corrective movements in experiment 2. Dashed lines, Hit condition; solid lines, stop condition. d, Undershoot in experiment 2. e, Movement duration in experiment 2. f, Corrective movements in experiment 3. g, Undershoot in experiment 3. h, Movement duration in experiment 3.

  • Figure 5.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 5.

    a, Spatial variability of unperturbed hand paths in experiment 2. The ellipsoids correspond to ±2 SDs in each direction. Aligning three-dimensional trajectories for the purpose of computing variance is nontrivial and was done as follows. We first resampled all movements for a given subject at 100 points equally spaced along the path, and found the average trajectory. Then, for each point along the average trajectory, we found the nearest sample point from each individual trajectory. These nearest points were averaged to recompute the corresponding point along the average trajectory, and the procedure was repeated until convergence (which only takes 2–3 iterations). In this way, we extracted the spatial variability of the hand paths, independent of timing fluctuations. That is why the covariance ellipsoids are flat in the movement direction. b, Variability per dimension, for the stop (solid) and hit (dashed) conditions in experiment 2. At each point along the path, this quantity was computed as the square root of the trace of the covariance matrix for the corresponding ellipsoid, divided by 3. To plot variability as a function of time, we resampled back from equal-space to equal-time intervals. c, d, Same as subplots (a, b) but for experiment 3. e, Normalized target acceleration in the lateral direction, lateral hand position, and hand position in the forward direction (positive is toward the robot). Dashed lines, Hit condition; solid lines, stop condition. Note that the onset of hand acceleration occurs before the movement reversal in the forward direction.

  • Figure 6.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 6.

    a, Endpoint SD in different directions, experiments 2 and 3, unperturbed trials. Black, Lateral direction; white, vertical direction (coordinates relative to the target); gray, vertical direction (absolute coordinates). In experiment 3, the relative and absolute endpoint positions are different in the vertical direction, because the target is falling and the variability in movement duration causes variability in vertical target position at the end of the movement. b, Lateral velocity immediately before contact with the robot, in late perturbation trials. c, Wrist contribution to the lateral correction, in a pilot experiment with 10 subjects. The main difference from experiment 2 was that the wrist was not braced. The lateral correction could be accomplished with humeral rotation (resulting mostly in translation of the hand-held pointer) or wrist flexion/extension (resulting in rotation of the pointer in the horizontal plane). The pointer was held in such a way that the Polhemus sensor was near the wrist. Therefore, the lateral displacement of the sensor on perturbed trials (relative to the average trajectory on unperturbed trials) can be used as an index of how much humeral rotation contributes to the correction. The displacement of the tip of the pointer is defined as the total correction. The difference between the two is the contribution of the wrist. Dividing the latter by the total correction, and multiplying by 100, we obtain the percentage wrist contribution.

  • Figure 7.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 7.

    a, Corrective movements of the more general optimal feedback control model. The solid and dashed lines correspond to the stop and hit conditions, respectively. The hand is restricted to a grid of discrete states; however, the dynamics are stochastic, and so the average (over 1000 simulated trials) is smooth, although the individual trajectories have a staircase pattern. b, c, Undershoot and movement duration in the stop and hit conditions for different perturbation times. Same format as the experimental data in Figure 4.

  • Figure 8.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 8.

    Hand positional variance on unperturbed trials, measured along the perturbation direction. Trajectories are aligned at equal intervals along the movement path to compute variance. The solid line (baseline) is the variance in blocks without perturbations. The dashed line (adapted) is the variance in blocks with 66% perturbations. Data from the hit and stop conditions are averaged.

Tables

  • Figures
    • View popup
    Table 1.

    Parameters of linear-quadratic-Gaussian model

    ParametersCriteria
    m = 1 kg, b = 10 Ns/m, τ = 0.05 sCompatibility with biomechanics
    sa = 0.1Order-of-magnitude normalization
    c1 = 0.15, c2 = 0.05, σ = 0.015Fit to variability of unperturbed trials
    wenergy = 0.00005Overall fit to data
    wstop = 1 → 0.01Qualitative predictions regarding stop versus hit
    • View popup
    Table 2.

    Percentage variance explained

    VariableRegressorAll trialsBaselineEarly jumpLate jump
    y1z, w74.3691.13
    y1w71.5086.33
    y1z
    y2z, w99.3499.8598.15
    y2w99.2899.8397.34
    y2z
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of Neuroscience: 27 (35)
Journal of Neuroscience
Vol. 27, Issue 35
29 Aug 2007
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
Email

Thank you for sharing this Journal of Neuroscience article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Evidence for the Flexible Sensorimotor Strategies Predicted by Optimal Feedback Control
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Journal of Neuroscience
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Journal of Neuroscience.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
View Full Page PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Citation Tools
Evidence for the Flexible Sensorimotor Strategies Predicted by Optimal Feedback Control
Dan Liu, Emanuel Todorov
Journal of Neuroscience 29 August 2007, 27 (35) 9354-9368; DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1110-06.2007

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Respond to this article
Request Permissions
Share
Evidence for the Flexible Sensorimotor Strategies Predicted by Optimal Feedback Control
Dan Liu, Emanuel Todorov
Journal of Neuroscience 29 August 2007, 27 (35) 9354-9368; DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1110-06.2007
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Responses to this article

Respond to this article

Jump to comment:

No eLetters have been published for this article.

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

Articles

  • Choice Behavior Guided by Learned, But Not Innate, Taste Aversion Recruits the Orbitofrontal Cortex
  • Maturation of Spontaneous Firing Properties after Hearing Onset in Rat Auditory Nerve Fibers: Spontaneous Rates, Refractoriness, and Interfiber Correlations
  • Insulin Treatment Prevents Neuroinflammation and Neuronal Injury with Restored Neurobehavioral Function in Models of HIV/AIDS Neurodegeneration
Show more Articles

Behavioral/Systems/Cognitive

  • Episodic Reinstatement in the Medial Temporal Lobe
  • Musical Expertise Induces Audiovisual Integration of Abstract Congruency Rules
  • The Laminar Development of Direction Selectivity in Ferret Visual Cortex
Show more Behavioral/Systems/Cognitive
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Facebook
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on Twitter
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on LinkedIn
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Youtube
  • Follow our RSS feeds

Content

  • Early Release
  • Current Issue
  • Issue Archive
  • Collections

Information

  • For Authors
  • For Advertisers
  • For the Media
  • For Subscribers

About

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Privacy Policy
  • Contact
  • Feedback
(JNeurosci logo)
(SfN logo)

Copyright © 2021 by the Society for Neuroscience.
JNeurosci Online ISSN: 1529-2401

The ideas and opinions expressed in JNeurosci do not necessarily reflect those of SfN or the JNeurosci Editorial Board. Publication of an advertisement or other product mention in JNeurosci should not be construed as an endorsement of the manufacturer’s claims. SfN does not assume any responsibility for any injury and/or damage to persons or property arising from or related to any use of any material contained in JNeurosci.