scholarly journals Dynamical consequences of sensory feedback in a half-center oscillator coupled to a simple motor system

2021 ◽  
Vol 115 (2) ◽  
pp. 135-160
Author(s):  
Zhuojun Yu ◽  
Peter J. Thomas
Keyword(s):  
Motor System ◽  
Sensory Feedback ◽  
Simple Motor

Simple Motor System of the Ascidian Larva: Neuronal Complex Comprising Putative Cholinergic and GABAergic/Glycinergic Neurons

2010 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 181-190 ◽  
Author(s):  
Takeo Horie ◽  
Masashi Nakagawa ◽  
Yasunori Sasakura ◽  
Takehiro G. Kusakabe ◽  
Motoyuki Tsuda
Keyword(s):  
Motor System ◽  
Simple Motor ◽  
Ascidian Larva

scholarly journals State-dependent sensorimotor gating in a rhythmic motor system

2017 ◽  
Vol 118 (5) ◽  
pp. 2806-2818 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rachel S. White ◽  
Robert M. Spencer ◽  
Michael P. Nusbaum ◽  
Dawn M. Blitz
Keyword(s):  
Motor Activity ◽  
Motor System ◽  
Sensory Feedback ◽  
Activity Patterns ◽  
Motor Pattern ◽  
Projection Neuron ◽  
Projection Neurons ◽  
Gastric Mill ◽  
Sensory Regulation ◽  
Motor Circuits

Sensory feedback influences motor circuits and/or their projection neuron inputs to adjust ongoing motor activity, but its efficacy varies. Currently, less is known about regulation of sensory feedback onto projection neurons that control downstream motor circuits than about sensory regulation of the motor circuit neurons themselves. In this study, we tested whether sensory feedback onto projection neurons is sensitive only to activation of a motor system, or also to the modulatory state underlying that activation, using the crab Cancer borealis stomatogastric nervous system. We examined how proprioceptor neurons (gastropyloric receptors, GPRs) influence the gastric mill (chewing) circuit neurons and the projection neurons (MCN1, CPN2) that drive the gastric mill rhythm. During gastric mill rhythms triggered by the mechanosensory ventral cardiac neurons (VCNs), GPR was shown previously to influence gastric mill circuit neurons, but its excitation of MCN1/CPN2 was absent. In this study, we tested whether GPR effects on MCN1/CPN2 are also absent during gastric mill rhythms triggered by the peptidergic postoesophageal commissure (POC) neurons. The VCN and POC pathways both trigger lasting MCN1/CPN2 activation, but their distinct influence on circuit feedback to these neurons produces different gastric mill motor patterns. We show that GPR excites MCN1 and CPN2 during the POC-gastric mill rhythm, altering their firing rates and activity patterns. This action changes both phases of the POC-gastric mill rhythm, whereas GPR only alters one phase of the VCN-gastric mill rhythm. Thus sensory feedback to projection neurons can be gated as a function of the modulatory state of an active motor system, not simply switched on/off with the onset of motor activity. NEW & NOTEWORTHY Sensory feedback influences motor systems (i.e., motor circuits and their projection neuron inputs). However, whether regulation of sensory feedback to these projection neurons is consistent across different versions of the same motor pattern driven by the same motor system was not known. We found that gating of sensory feedback to projection neurons is determined by the modulatory state of the motor system, and not simply by whether the system is active or inactive.

scholarly journals Modeling the Role of Sensory Feedback in Speech Motor Control and Learning

2019 ◽  
Vol 62 (8S) ◽  
pp. 2963-2985 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin Parrell ◽  
John Houde
Keyword(s):  
Motor Control ◽  
Motor System ◽  
Sensory Feedback ◽  
Computational Models ◽  
State Feedback Control ◽  
Speech Motor Control ◽  
Control Feedback ◽  
Motor Production ◽  
Speech Motor

Purpose While the speech motor system is sensitive to feedback perturbations, sensory feedback does not seem to be critical to speech motor production. How the speech motor system is able to be so flexible in its use of sensory feedback remains an open question. Method We draw on evidence from a variety of disciplines to summarize current understanding of the sensory systems' role in speech motor control, including both online control and motor learning. We focus particularly on computational models of speech motor control that incorporate sensory feedback, as these models provide clear encapsulations of different theories of sensory systems' function in speech production. These computational models include the well-established directions into velocities of articulators model and computational models that we have been developing in our labs based on the domain-general theory of state feedback control (feedback aware control of tasks in speech model). Results After establishing the architecture of the models, we show that both the directions into velocities of articulators and state feedback control/feedback aware control of tasks models can replicate key behaviors related to sensory feedback in the speech motor system. Although the models agree on many points, the underlying architecture of the 2 models differs in a few key ways, leading to different predictions in certain areas. We cover key disagreements between the models to show the limits of our current understanding and point toward areas where future experimental studies can resolve these questions. Conclusions Understanding the role of sensory information in the speech motor system is critical to understanding speech motor production and sensorimotor learning in healthy speakers as well as in disordered populations. Computational models, with their concrete implementations and testable predictions, are an important tool to understand this process. Comparison of different models can highlight areas of agreement and disagreement in the field and point toward future experiments to resolve important outstanding questions about the speech motor control system.

Actions of identified neuromodulatory neurons in a simple motor system

1990 ◽  
Vol 13 (9) ◽  
pp. 367-373 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul S. Katz ◽  
Ronald M. Harris-Warrick
Keyword(s):  
Motor System ◽  
Simple Motor

scholarly journals Learning in a Simple Motor System

2004 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 127-136 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. M. Broussard
Keyword(s):  
Motor System ◽  
Simple Motor

Sensory Feedback Does Not Cause Selective Adaptation of Human “Command Neurons”

1977 ◽  
Vol 44 (2) ◽  
pp. 447-451 ◽  
Author(s):  
David A. Rosenbaum ◽  
Michael Radford
Keyword(s):  
Present Experiment ◽  
Motor System ◽  
Sensory Feedback ◽  
Negative Transfer ◽  
Human Subjects ◽  
Selective Adaptation ◽  
Positive Transfer ◽  
Command Neurons ◽  
Body Movements ◽  
Human Motor

It has been proposed that body movements are partly controlled by a neural hierarchy, with cells at successively higher levels controlling increasing numbers of muscles engaged in functionally equivalent responses. In addition to physiological support for the hypothesis, obtained from infrahuman species, evidence from human subjects has been obtained in the form of negative transfer between successive similar responses. This negative transfer has been attributed to selective adaptation of “command neurons” in the human motor system. The present experiment found no evidence for negative (or positive) transfer between passive and active movements, suggesting that selective adaptation of human command neurons is caused by efference rather than afference.

scholarly journals Biomechanical basis of wing and haltere coordination in flies

2015 ◽  
Vol 112 (5) ◽  
pp. 1481-1486 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tanvi Deora ◽  
Amit Kumar Singh ◽  
Sanjay P. Sane
Keyword(s):  
Flight Control ◽  
Motor System ◽  
Sensory Feedback ◽  
Phase Synchronization ◽  
Aerodynamic Forces ◽  
Precise Control ◽  
Wing Motion ◽  
Clutch System ◽  
Biomechanical Features ◽  
Ecological Habitats

The spectacular success and diversification of insects rests critically on two major evolutionary adaptations. First, the evolution of flight, which enhanced the ability of insects to colonize novel ecological habitats, evade predators, or hunt prey; and second, the miniaturization of their body size, which profoundly influenced all aspects of their biology from development to behavior. However, miniaturization imposes steep demands on the flight system because smaller insects must flap their wings at higher frequencies to generate sufficient aerodynamic forces to stay aloft; it also poses challenges to the sensorimotor system because precise control of wing kinematics and body trajectories requires fast sensory feedback. These tradeoffs are best studied in Dipteran flies in which rapid mechanosensory feedback to wing motor system is provided by halteres, reduced hind wings that evolved into gyroscopic sensors. Halteres oscillate at the same frequency as and precisely antiphase to the wings; they detect body rotations during flight, thus providing feedback that is essential for controlling wing motion during aerial maneuvers. Although tight phase synchrony between halteres and wings is essential for providing proper timing cues, the mechanisms underlying this coordination are not well understood. Here, we identify specific mechanical linkages within the thorax that passively mediate both wing–wing and wing–haltere phase synchronization. We demonstrate that the wing hinge must possess a clutch system that enables flies to independently engage or disengage each wing from the mechanically linked thorax. In concert with a previously described gearbox located within the wing hinge, the clutch system enables independent control of each wing. These biomechanical features are essential for flight control in flies.

scholarly journals Sensory feedback and the impaired motor system

1990 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 93-105 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard H. Eckhouse ◽  
Ronald P. Morash ◽  
Ruth A. Maulucci
Keyword(s):  
Motor System ◽  
Sensory Feedback
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document