anticipatory motor control
Recently Published Documents


TOTAL DOCUMENTS

8
(FIVE YEARS 0)

H-INDEX

5
(FIVE YEARS 0)

2018 ◽  
Vol 55 ◽  
pp. 45-52 ◽  
Author(s):  
Megan C. Kirkland ◽  
Alice Chen ◽  
Matthew B. Downer ◽  
Brett J. Holloway ◽  
Elizabeth M. Wallack ◽  
...  

2014 ◽  
Vol 7 (6) ◽  
pp. 800-806 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vanessa Krause ◽  
Juliane Weber ◽  
Bettina Pollok

2013 ◽  
Vol 247 ◽  
pp. 182-192 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tommy H.B. Ng ◽  
Paul F. Sowman ◽  
Jon Brock ◽  
Blake W. Johnson

2008 ◽  
Vol 20 (5) ◽  
pp. 828-840 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bettina Pollok ◽  
Joachim Gross ◽  
Daniel Kamp ◽  
Alfons Schnitzler

The posterior parietal cortex and the cerebellum are assumed to contribute to anticipatory motor control. Thus, it is reasonable that these areas act as a functional unit. To identify a neural signature of anticipatory motor control, 11 healthy volunteers performed a bimanual finger-tapping task with respect to isochronous (i.e., regular) and randomized (i.e., irregular) auditory pacing. Neuromagnetic activity was recorded using a 122-channel whole-head neuromagnetometer. Functional interaction between spatially distributed brain areas was determined by measures of tap-related phase synchronization. Assuming that (i) the cerebellum predicts sensory events by an internal model and (ii) the PPC maintains this prediction, we hypothesized that functional interaction between both structures varies depending on the predictability of the pacing signal. During isochronous pacing, functional connectivity within a cerebello-diencephalic-parietal network before tap onset was evident, suggesting anticipatory motor control. During randomized pacing, however, functional connectivity after tap onset was increased within a parietal-cerebellar loop, suggesting mismatch detection and update of the internal model. Data of the present study imply that anticipatory motor control is implemented in a network-like manner. Our data agree well with the hypothesis that functional connectivity in a cerebello-diencephalic-parietal loop might be crucial for anticipatory motor control, whereas parietal-cerebellar interaction might be critical for feedback processing.


2000 ◽  
Vol 83 (4) ◽  
pp. 1777-1786 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert H. LaMotte

The abilities of humans to discriminate the softness of rubber objects of differing compliance with a hand-held tool (a stylus) was measured under experimental conditions that differed as to how the tool was used and the kind of sensory information available. When the subject actively tapped or pressed the compliant objects, they discriminated softness as well by means of a stylus as they did by contacting the objects directly with the fingerpad. Discrimination with the stylus was unaffected by whether the stylus was controlled by one or two fingers. While tapping or pressing a stylus held in a precision grip, the grip force increased before, reached a maximum at the same time as, and decreased in parallel with the compressional force. This relationship was suggestive of anticipatory motor control based on an internal model of the motor system and the physical properties of the object. Discrimination was significantly better when tapping as opposed to pressing the objects with the stylus. This was hypothesized as due to the presence of tactile cues generated by the rapid increase in force rate as the stylus struck and indented the object during tapping. During tapping, the magnitude and rate of compressional force produced by the stylus against the object were greater, the harder the object. An additional cue, possibly kinesthetic, during pressing and tapping was the magnitude of indentation of the specimen by the stylus that was greater, the softer the object. Subjects could discriminate differences on softness by tactile cues alone in the absence of kinesthetic when compliant objects were tapped at approximately the same velocity by the experimenter against a stylus in contact with the subject's passive fingerpad. Discrimination deteriorated if the softer specimen of a pair was tapped with a slightly greater velocity than the harder and not possible if the specimens were pressed against the stylus without generating tactile cues of mechanical contact. In contrast, discrimination was possible during active pressing and unaffected by variations in velocity during active tapping. It is concluded that during active movements, kinesthetic information and knowledge of central efferent commands provide useful cues that are not present during passive touch. These cues allow the observer to discriminate differences in object compliance not confounded by differences in applied velocity.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document