Skip to main content
Log in

A teleological explanation of Weber's law and the motor unit size law

  • Published:
Bulletin of Mathematical Biology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

It is shown that the Weber-Fechner law. which relates the response of a sensory biosystem to the intensity of the input stimulus, can be derived from a teleological principle of minimum transentropy (maximal noise reduction) provided the relative mean fluctuation (coefficient of variation) of the input intensity can be assumed to be (approximately) constant for all feasible mean input intensities. A law is then deduced from experimental results which quantifies the relationship existing between the relative amount of activated muscle mass and the “size” (which term is clearly defined) of a newly recruited motor unit. This law is found to be formally equivalent to the Weber-Fechner law when applied to motor unit recruitment. It is then shown that, in general, the ratio of the force increment upon recruitment, to the present force output does not obey Weber's law. Finally, it is proved that the “motor unit size law” as derived in this paper implies a fixed sequential order in the recruitment of motor units and that it may be viewed as the realization, by the mammalian neuromuscular system, of a general principle of maximum grading sensitivity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Literature

  • Birnbaum, Z. W. 1964.Introduction to Probability and Mathematical Statistics, pp. 61–70. Harper and Row.

  • Biró, G. and L. D. Partridge. 1971. “Analysis of Multiunit Spike Records.”J. Appl. Physiol.,30, 521–526.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boring, E. G. 1942.Sensation and Perception in the History of Experimental Psychology. Appleton.

  • Buchthal, F., C. Guld and P. Rosenfalck. 1957. “Volume Conduction of the Spike of the Motor Unit Potential Investigated with a New Type of Multielectrode.”Acta Physiol. Scand.,38, 331–354.

    Google Scholar 

  • —, and H. Schmalbruch. 1970. “Contraction Times and Fibre Types in Intact Human Muscle.”Acta Physiol. Scand.,79, 435–452.

    Google Scholar 

  • Close, R. I. 1972. “Dynamic Properties of Mammalian Skeletal Muscle.”Physiol. Rev.,52, 129–197.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ditchburn, R. W. 1963.Light, pp. 784–801. Blackie & Son.

  • Drischel, H. 1973.Einführung in die Biokybernetik, pp. 203–228. Akademie-Verlag.

  • Eberstein, A. and J. Goodgold. 1968. “Slow and Fast Twitch Fibres in Human Skeletal Muscle.”Am. J. Physiol.,215, 535–541.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fechner, G. T. 1862.Elemente der Psychophysik, pp. 548–560. Breitkopf & Härtel.

  • Feinstein, B., B. Lindegard, E. Nyman and G. Wohlfart 1955. “Morphologic Studies of Motor Units in Normal Human Muscles.”Acta Anat. 23, 127–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gydikov, A. and D. Kosarov. 1973. “Physiological Characteristics of the Tonic and Phasic Motor Units in Human Muscles.” InMotor Control Eds. Gydikov, Tankov and Kosarov, pp. 75–94. Plenum Press.

  • Håkansson, C. H. 1957. “Action Potentials Recorded Intra- and Extracellularly from the Isolated Frog Muscle Fibre in Ringer's Solution and in Air.”Acta Physiol. Scand.,39, 291–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hatze, H. 1977a. “A Myocybernetic Control Model of Skeletal Muscle.”Biol. Cybernetics,25, 103–119.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • —, 1977b. “The Relative Contribution of Motor Unit Recruitment and Rate Coding to the Production of Static Isometric Muscle Force.”Biol. Cybernetics,27, 21–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • — and J. D. Buys. 1977. “Energy-Optimal Controls in the Mammalian Neuromuscular System.”Biol. Cybernetics,27, 9–20.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Henneman, E. 1968. “Peripheral Mechanisms Involved in the Control of Muscle.” InMedical Physiology Ed. V. B. Mountcastle, pp. 1697–1716. Mosby.

  • Jarcho, L. W., C. L. Vera, C. H. McCarthy and P. M. Williams. 1958. “The Form of Motor Unit and Fibrillation Potentials.”Electroencephal. Clin. Neurophysiol.,10, 527–540.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katz, B. 1950. “Depolarization of Sensory Terminals and the Initiation of Impulses in the Muscle Spindle.”J. Physiol.,111, 261–282.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuffler, S. W. and J. G. Nicholls. 1976.From Neuron to Brain, pp. 183–188. Sinauer Asosc.

  • MacKay, D. M. 1963. “Psychophysics of Perceived Intensity: A Theoretical Basis for Fechner's and Stevens' Laws.”Science,139, 1213–1216.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, B. H. C. 1931. “The Response of a Single End Organ.”J. Physiol. 71, 64–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milner-Brown, H. S., R. B. Stein and R. Yemm. 1973a. “The Orderly Recruitment of Human Motor Units During Voluntary Isometric Contractions.”J. Physiol.,230, 359–370.

    Google Scholar 

  • —— and —. 1973b. “Changes in Firing Rate of Human Motor Units During Linearly Changing Voluntary Contractions.”J. Physiol.,230, 371–390.

    Google Scholar 

  • — and —. 1975. “The Relation Between the Surface Electromyogram and Muscular Force.”J. Physiol.,246, 549–569.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milsum, J. H. 1966.Biological Control Systems Analysis. McGraw-Hill.

  • Person, R. S. and L. P. Kudina. 1972. “Discharge Frequency and Discharge Pattern of Human Motor Units During Voluntary Contraction of Muscle.”Electroenceph. Clin. Neurophysiol.,32, 471–483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reza, F. M. 1960. “Study of Systems Reliability Entropy of a Continuous Channel.” S. U. R. I. Report No. EE-507-6001-F, p. 5.

  • Round, H. 1966.The Hamilton-Jacobi Theory in the Calculus of Variations, pp. 35, 139. Van Nostrand.

  • Ruch, T. C. and J. F. Fulton. 1961.Medical Physiology and Biophysics, p. 421. Saunders.

  • Shannon, C. E. 1948. “A Mathematical Theory of Communication.”Bell Systems Techn. J.,27, 379–423, 623–656.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Siebert, W. M. 1973. “Stochastic Limitations on Sensory Performance”. InLectures on Mathematics in the Life Sciences, Vol. 5, pp. 48–74. American Mathematical Society.

  • Stein, R. B. 1974. “Peripheral Control of Movement.”Physiol. Rev. 54, 215–243.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, S. S. 1961.Sensory Communication. Ed. W. A. Rosenblith. M.I.T. Press.

  • Weber, E. H. 1834, “De Pulsu, Resorptione, Auditu et Tactu.”

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hatze, H. A teleological explanation of Weber's law and the motor unit size law. Bltn Mathcal Biology 41, 407–425 (1979). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02460820

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02460820

Keywords

Navigation