Faculty Opinions recommendation of Recurrent cerebellar architecture solves the motor-error problem.

2004 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher Yeo
Keyword(s):  
Motor Error

scholarly journals An analytical method reduces noise bias in motor adaptation analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel H. Blustein ◽  
Ahmed W. Shehata ◽  
Erin S. Kuylenstierna ◽  
Kevin B. Englehart ◽  
Jonathon W. Sensinger
Keyword(s):  
Motor Planning ◽  
Motor Adaptation ◽  
Motor Command ◽  
Systematic Bias ◽  
Sources Of Information ◽  
Noise Masking ◽  
Stochastic Signal ◽  
Movement Data ◽  
Motor Error ◽  
Stochastic Signal Processing

AbstractWhen a person makes a movement, a motor error is typically observed that then drives motor planning corrections on subsequent movements. This error correction, quantified as a trial-by-trial adaptation rate, provides insight into how the nervous system is operating, particularly regarding how much confidence a person places in different sources of information such as sensory feedback or motor command reproducibility. Traditional analysis has required carefully controlled laboratory conditions such as the application of perturbations or error clamping, limiting the usefulness of motor analysis in clinical and everyday environments. Here we focus on error adaptation during unperturbed and naturalistic movements. With increasing motor noise, we show that the conventional estimation of trial-by-trial adaptation increases, a counterintuitive finding that is the consequence of systematic bias in the estimate due to noise masking the learner’s intention. We present an analytic solution relying on stochastic signal processing to reduce this effect of noise, producing an estimate of motor adaptation with reduced bias. The result is an improved estimate of trial-by-trial adaptation in a human learner compared to conventional methods. We demonstrate the effectiveness of the new method in analyzing simulated and empirical movement data under different noise conditions.

Visual-Vestibular Interaction Hypothesis for the Control of Orienting Gaze Shifts by Brain Stem Omnipause Neurons

2007 ◽  
Vol 97 (2) ◽  
pp. 1149-1162 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mario Prsa ◽  
Henrietta L. Galiana
Keyword(s):  
Brain Stem ◽  
Head Movements ◽  
Gaze Control ◽  
Gaze Shifts ◽  
Gaze Shift ◽  
Switching Mechanism ◽  
Interaction Hypothesis ◽  
Visual Vestibular Interaction ◽  
Motor Error ◽  
Gaze Position

Models of combined eye-head gaze shifts all aim to realistically simulate behaviorally observed movement dynamics. One of the most problematic features of such models is their inability to determine when a saccadic gaze shift should be initiated and when it should be ended. This is commonly referred to as the switching mechanism mediated by omni-directional pause neurons (OPNs) in the brain stem. Proposed switching strategies implemented in existing gaze control models all rely on a sensory error between instantaneous gaze position and the spatial target. Accordingly, gaze saccades are initiated after presentation of an eccentric visual target and subsequently terminated when an internal estimate of gaze position becomes nearly equal to that of the target. Based on behavioral observations, we demonstrate that such a switching mechanism is insufficient and is unable to explain certain types of movements. We propose an improved hypothesis for how the OPNs control gaze shifts based on a visual-vestibular interaction of signals known to be carried on anatomical projections to the OPN area. The approach is justified by the analysis of recorded gaze shifts interrupted by a head brake in animal subjects and is demonstrated by implementing the switching mechanism in an anatomically based gaze control model. Simulated performance reveals that a weighted sum of three signals: gaze motor error, head velocity, and eye velocity, hypothesized as inputs to OPNs, successfully reproduces diverse behaviorally observed eye-head movements that no other existing model can account for.

Evidence That the Superior Colliculus Participates in the Feedback Control of Saccadic Eye Movements

2002 ◽  
Vol 87 (2) ◽  
pp. 679-695 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robijanto Soetedjo ◽  
Chris R. S. Kaneko ◽  
Albert F. Fuchs
Keyword(s):  
Superior Colliculus ◽  
Firing Rate ◽  
Saccadic Eye Movements ◽  
Burst Duration ◽  
Saccadic Amplitude ◽  
Optimal Vector ◽  
Deceleration Phase ◽  
Acceleration And Deceleration ◽  
Motor Error ◽  
Saccade Duration

There is general agreement that saccades are guided to their targets by means of a motor error signal, which is produced by a local feedback circuit that calculates the difference between desired saccadic amplitude and an internal copy of actual saccadic amplitude. Although the superior colliculus (SC) is thought to provide the desired saccadic amplitude signal, it is unclear whether the SC resides in the feedback loop. To test this possibility, we injected muscimol into the brain stem region containing omnipause neurons (OPNs) to slow saccades and then determined whether the firing of neurons at different sites in the SC was altered. In 14 experiments, we produced saccadic slowing while simultaneously recording the activity of a single SC neuron. Eleven of the 14 neurons were saccade-related burst neurons (SRBNs), which discharged their most vigorous burst for saccades with an optimal amplitude and direction (optimal vector). The optimal directions for the 11 SRBNs ranged from nearly horizontal to nearly vertical, with optimal amplitudes between 4 and 17°. Although muscimol injections into the OPN region produced little change in the optimal vector, they did increase mean saccade duration by 25 to 192.8% and decrease mean saccade peak velocity by 20.5 to 69.8%. For optimal vector saccades, both the acceleration and deceleration phases increased in duration. However, during 10 of 14 experiments, the duration of deceleration increased as fast as or faster than that of acceleration as saccade duration increased, indicating that most of the increase in duration occurred during the deceleration phase. SRBNs in the SC changed their burst duration and firing rate concomitantly with changes in saccadic duration and velocity, respectively. All SRBNs showed a robust increase in burst duration as saccadic duration increased. Five of 11 SRBNs also exhibited a decrease in burst peak firing rate as saccadic velocity decreased. On average across the neurons, the number of spikes in the burst was constant. There was no consistent change in the discharge of the three SC neurons that did not exhibit bursts with saccades. Our data show that the SC receives feedback from downstream saccade-related neurons about the ongoing saccades. However, the changes in SC firing produced in our study do not suggest that the feedback is involved with producing motor error. Instead, the feedback seems to be involved with regulating the duration of the discharge of SRBNs so that the desired saccadic amplitude signal remains present throughout the saccade.

scholarly journals Voluntary Control of Multisaccade Gaze Shifts During Movement Preparation and Execution

2010 ◽  
Vol 103 (5) ◽  
pp. 2400-2416 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arjun Ramakrishnan ◽  
Snehal Chokhandre ◽  
Aditya Murthy
Keyword(s):  
Race Model ◽  
Oculomotor System ◽  
Gaze Control ◽  
Inhibitory Process ◽  
Gaze Shifts ◽  
Motor Error ◽  
Average Latency ◽  
Corrective Response ◽  
Different Levels ◽  
Initial Target

Although the nature of gaze control regulating single saccades is relatively well documented, how such control is implemented to regulate multisaccade gaze shifts is not known. We used highly eccentric targets to elicit multisaccade gaze shifts and tested the ability of subjects to control the saccade sequence by presenting a second target on random trials. Their response allowed us to test the nature of control at many levels: before, during, and between saccades. Although the saccade sequence could be inhibited before it began, we observed clear signs of truncation of the first saccade, which confirmed that it could be inhibited in midflight as well. Using a race model that explains the control of single saccades, we estimated that it took about 100 ms to inhibit a planned saccade but took about 150 ms to inhibit a saccade during its execution. Although the time taken to inhibit was different, the high subject-wise correlation suggests a unitary inhibitory control acting at different levels in the oculomotor system. We also frequently observed responses that consisted of hypometric initial saccades, followed by secondary saccades to the initial target. Given the estimates of the inhibitory process provided by the model that also took into account the variances of the processes as well, the secondary saccades (average latency ∼215 ms) should have been inhibited. Failure to inhibit the secondary saccade suggests that the intersaccadic interval in a multisaccade response is a ballistic stage. Collectively, these data indicate that the oculomotor system can control a response until a very late stage in its execution. However, if the response consists of multiple movements then the preparation of the second movement becomes refractory to new visual input, either because it is part of a preprogrammed sequence or as a consequence of being a corrective response to a motor error.

scholarly journals Sub-optimality in motor planning is not improved by explicit observation of motor uncertainty

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Keiji Ota ◽  
Masahiro Shinya ◽  
Laurence T. Maloney ◽  
Kazutoshi Kudo
Keyword(s):  
Motor Planning ◽  
The Other ◽  
Insufficient Information ◽  
Reaching Task ◽  
Additional Information ◽  
Optimal Decisions ◽  
Decisions Under Risk ◽  
Motor Error ◽  
Better Than ◽  
Decision Tasks

Abstract To make optimal decisions under risk, one must correctly weight potential rewards and penalties by the probabilities of receiving them. In motor decision tasks, the uncertainty in outcome is a consequence of motor uncertainty. When participants perform suboptimally as they often do in such tasks, it could be because they have insufficient information about their motor uncertainty: with more information, their performance could converge to optimal as they learn their own motor uncertainty. Alternatively, their suboptimal performance may reflect an inability to make use of the information they have or even to perform the correct computations. To discriminate between these two possibilities, we performed an experiment spanning two days. On the first day, all participants performed a reaching task with trial-by-trial feedback of motor error. At the end of the day, their aim points were still typically suboptimal. On the second day participants were divided into two groups one of which repeated the task of the first day and the other of which repeated the task but were intermittently given additional information summarizing their motor errors. Participants receiving additional information did not perform significantly better than those who did not.

Brain Stem Omnipause Neurons and the Control of CombinedEye-Head Gaze Saccades in the Alert Cat

1998 ◽  
Vol 79 (6) ◽  
pp. 3060-3076 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Paré ◽  
Daniel Guitton
Keyword(s):  
Gaze Control ◽  
Error Signal ◽  
Gaze Shifts ◽  
Gaze Shift ◽  
The Gaze ◽  
Alert Cat ◽  
Motor Error ◽  
Omnipause Neurons ◽  
Gaze Saccades ◽  
Stimulation Of

Paré, Martin and Daniel Guitton. Brain stem omnipause neurons and the control of combined eye-head gaze saccades in the alert cat. J. Neurophysiol. 79: 3060–3076, 1998. When the head is unrestrained, rapid displacements of the visual axis—gaze shifts (eye-re-space)—are made by coordinated movements of the eyes (eye-re-head) and head (head-re-space). To address the problem of the neural control of gaze shifts, we studied and contrasted the discharges of omnipause neurons (OPNs) during a variety of combined eye-head gaze shifts and head-fixed eye saccades executed by alert cats. OPNs discharged tonically during intersaccadic intervals and at a reduced level during slow perisaccadic gaze movements sometimes accompanying saccades. Their activity ceased for the duration of the saccadic gaze shifts the animal executed, either by head-fixed eye saccades alone or by combined eye-head movements. This was true for all types of gaze shifts studied: active movements to visual targets; passive movements induced by whole-body rotation or by head rotation about stationary body; and electrically evoked movements by stimulation of the caudal part of the superior colliculus (SC), a central structure for gaze control. For combined eye-head gaze shifts, the OPN pause was therefore not correlated to the eye-in-head trajectory. For instance, in active gaze movements, the end of the pause was better correlated with the gaze end than with either the eye saccade end or the time of eye counterrotation. The hypothesis that cat OPNs participate in controlling gaze shifts is supported by these results, and also by the observation that the movements of both the eyes and the head were transiently interrupted by stimulation of OPNs during gaze shifts. However, we found that the OPN pause could be dissociated from the gaze-motor-error signal producing the gaze shift. First, OPNs resumed discharging when perturbation of head motion briefly interrupted a gaze shift before its intended amplitude was attained. Second, stimulation of caudal SC sites in head-free cat elicited large head-free gaze shifts consistent with the creation of a large gaze-motor-error signal. However, stimulation of the same sites in head-fixed cat produced small “goal-directed” eye saccades, and OPNs paused only for the duration of the latter; neither a pause nor an eye movement occurred when the same stimulation was applied with the eyes at the goal location. We conclude that OPNs can be controlled by neither a simple eye control system nor an absolute gaze control system. Our data cannot be accounted for by existing models describing the control of combined eye-head gaze shifts and therefore put new constraints on future models, which will have to incorporate all the various signals that act synergistically to control gaze shifts.

Postsaccadic eye position contributes to oculomotor error estimation in saccadic adaptation

2019 ◽  
Vol 122 (5) ◽  
pp. 1909-1917
Author(s):  
Svenja Gremmler ◽  
Markus Lappe
Keyword(s):  
Visual Feedback ◽  
Eye Position ◽  
Time Interval ◽  
Proprioceptive Information ◽  
Experimental Conditions ◽  
Position Information ◽  
Saccadic Adaptation ◽  
Position Signal ◽  
Motor Error ◽  
Saccade Control

We investigated whether the proprioceptive eye position signal after the execution of a saccadic eye movement is used to estimate the accuracy of the movement. If so, saccadic adaptation, the mechanism that maintains saccade accuracy, could use this signal in a similar way as it uses visual feedback after the saccade. To manipulate the availability of the proprioceptive eye position signal we utilized the finding that proprioceptive eye position information builds up gradually after a saccade over a time interval comparable to typical saccade latencies. We confined the retention time of gaze at the saccade landing point by asking participants to make fast return saccades to the fixation point that preempt the usability of proprioceptive eye position signals. In five experimental conditions we measured the influence of the visual and proprioceptive feedback, together and separately, on the development of adaptation. We found that the adaptation of the previously shortened saccades in the case of visual feedback being unavailable after the saccade was significantly weaker when the use of proprioceptive eye position information was impaired by fast return saccades. We conclude that adaptation can be driven by proprioceptive eye position feedback. NEW & NOTEWORTHY We show that proprioceptive eye position information is used after a saccade to estimate motor error and adapt saccade control. Previous studies on saccadic adaptation focused on visual feedback about saccade accuracy. A multimodal error signal combining visual and proprioceptive information is likely more robust. Moreover, combining proprioceptive and visual measures of saccade performance can be helpful to keep vision, proprioception, and motor control in alignment and produce a coherent representation of space.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document