A critical evaluation of the force control hypothesis in motor control.
The ability to formulate explicit mathematical models of motor systems has played a central role in recent progress in motor control research. As a result of these modeling efforts and in particular the incorporation of concepts drawn from control systems theory, ideas about motor control have changed substantially. There is growing emphasis on motor learning and particularly on predictive or anticipatory aspects of control that are related to the neural representation of dynamics. Two ideas have become increasingly prominent in mathematical modeling of motor function--forward internal models and inverse dynamics. The notion of forward internal models which has drawn from work in adaptive control arises from the recognition that the nervous system takes account of dynamics in motion planning. Inverse dynamics, a complementary way of adjusting control signals to deal with dynamics, has proved a simple means to establish the joint torques necessary to produce desired movements. In this paper, we review the force control formulation in which inverse dynamics and forward internal models play a central role. We present evidence in its favor and describe its limitations. We note that inverse dynamics and forward models are potential solutions to general problems in motor control--how the nervous system establishes a mapping between desired movements and associated control signals, and how control signals are adjusted in the context of motor learning, dynamics and loads. However, we find little empirical evidence that specifically supports the inverse dynamics or forward internal model proposals per se. We further conclude that the central idea of the force control hypothesis--that control levels operate through the central specification of forces--is flawed. This is specifically evident in the context of attempts to incorporate physiologically realistic muscle and reflex mechanisms into the force control model. In particular, the formulation offers no means to shift between postures without triggering resistance due to postural stabilizing mechanisms.
Ostry
David J
DJ
Department of Psychology, McGill University, 1205 Dr. Penfield Avenue, Montreal, QC, H3A 1B1, Canada. ostry@motion.psych.mcgill.ca
Feldman
Anatol G
AG
D000818:Animals; D002490:Central Nervous System / Q000502:physiology*; D005246:Feedback / Q000502:physiology; D006801:Humans; D007596:Joints / Q000294:innervation / Q000502:physiology; D007858:Learning / Q000502:physiology; D008959:Models, Neurological; D009068:Movement / Q000502:physiology*; D018482:Muscle, Skeletal / Q000294:innervation / Q000502:physiology; D011187:Posture / Q000502:physiology*; D016474:Weight-Bearing / Q000502:physiology