Different mechanisms involved in adaptation to stable and unstable dynamics.

Recently, we demonstrated that humans can learn to make accurate movements in an unstable environment by controlling magnitude, shape, and orientation of the endpoint impedance. Although previous studies of human motor learning suggest that the brain acquires an inverse dynamics model of the novel environment, it is not known whether this control mechanism is operative in unstable environments. We compared learning of multijoint arm movements in a "velocity-dependent force field" (VF), which interacted with the arm in a stable manner, and learning in a "divergent force field" (DF), where the interaction was unstable. The characteristics of error evolution were markedly different in the 2 fields. The direction of trajectory error in the DF alternated to the left and right during the early stage of learning; that is, signed error was inconsistent from movement to movement and could not have guided learning of an inverse dynamics model. This contrasted sharply with trajectory error in the VF, which was initially biased and decayed in a manner that was consistent with rapid feedback error learning. EMG recorded before and after learning in the DF and VF are also consistent with different learning and control mechanisms for adapting to stable and unstable dynamics, that is, inverse dynamics model formation and impedance control. We also investigated adaptation to a rotated DF to examine the interplay between inverse dynamics model formation and impedance control. Our results suggest that an inverse dynamics model can function in parallel with an impedance controller to compensate for consistent perturbing force in unstable environments.

Impedance control and internal model use during the initial stage of adaptation to novel dynamics in humans.

This study investigated the neuromuscular mechanisms underlying the initial stage of adaptation to novel dynamics. A destabilizing velocity-dependent force field (VF) was introduced for sets of three consecutive trials. Between sets a random number of 4-8 null field trials were interposed, where the VF was inactivated. This prevented subjects from learning the novel dynamics, making it possible to repeatedly recreate the initial adaptive response. We were able to investigate detailed changes in neural control between the first, second and third VF trials. We identified two feedforward control mechanisms, which were initiated on the second VF trial and resulted in a 50% reduction in the hand path error. Responses to disturbances encountered on the first VF trial were feedback in nature, i.e. reflexes and voluntary correction of errors. However, on the second VF trial, muscle activation patterns were modified in anticipation of the effects of the force field. Feedforward cocontraction of all muscles was used to increase the viscoelastic impedance of the arm. While stiffening the arm, subjects also exerted a lateral force to counteract the perturbing effect of the force field. These anticipatory actions indicate that the central nervous system responds rapidly to counteract hitherto unfamiliar disturbances by a combination of increased viscoelastic impedance and formation of a crude internal dynamics model.