Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26354914›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience2015

Apparent and Actual Trajectory Control Depend on the Behavioral Context in Upper Limb Motor Tasks.

Tyler Cluff, Stephen H Scott

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

30 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Proprioceptive and Visual Feedback Responses in Macaques Exploit Goal Redundancy.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2023
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Tyler CluffCentre for Neuroscience Studies and.
Stephen H ScottCentre for Neuroscience Studies and Departments of Biomedical and Molecular Sciences and Medicine, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada steve.scott@queensu.ca.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A central problem in motor neuroscience is to understand how we select, plan, and control motor actions. An influential idea is that the motor system computes and implements a desired limb trajectory, an intermediary control process between the behavioral goal (reach a spatial goal) and motor commands to move the limb. The most compelling evidence for trajectory control is that corrective responses are directed back toward the unperturbed trajectory when the limb is disturbed during movement. However, the idea of trajectory control conflicts with optimal control theories that emphasize goal-directed motor corrections. Here we show that corrective responses in human subjects can deviate back toward the unperturbed trajectory, but these reversals were only present when there were explicit limits on movement time. Our second experiment asked whether trajectory control could be generated if the trajectory was made an explicit goal of the task. Participants countered unexpected loads while reaching to a static goal, tracking a moving target, or maintaining their hand within a visually constrained path to a static goal. Corrective responses were directed back toward the constrained path or to intercept the moving target. However, corrections back to the unperturbed path disappeared when reaching to the static target. Long-latency muscle responses paralleled changes in the behavioral goal in both sets of experiments, but goal-directed responses were delayed by 15-25 ms when tracking the moving goal. Our results show the motor system can behave like a trajectory controller but only if a "desired trajectory" is the goal of the task. Significance statement: One of the most influential ideas in motor control is that the motor system computes a "desired trajectory" when reaching to a spatial goal. Here we revisit the experimental paradigm from seminal papers supporting trajectory control to illustrate that corrective responses appear to return to the original trajectory of the limb, but only if there is an imposed timing constraint. We then provide direct evidence that the human motor system can behave like a trajectory controller, and return the limb to its original trajectory when a specified trajectory is the goal of the task. Our results show that the motor system is capable of a spectrum of corrective responses that depend on the behavioral goal of the motor task.

Indexed as

MovementPsychomotor PerformanceAdultArmBiomechanical PhenomenaFeedback, PhysiologicalFemaleGoalsHumansMaleMiddle AgedMuscle, Skeletalfeedback controlgoal-directed correctionsmechanical perturbationsmuscle stretch responsesreachingtask constraints

Identifiers

PMID26354914
PMCPMC6605398

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.