Separate representations of dynamics in rhythmic and discrete movements: evidence from motor learning.

Rhythmic and discrete arm movements occur ubiquitously in everyday life, and there is a debate as to whether these two classes of movements arise from the same or different underlying neural mechanisms. Here we examine interference in a motor-learning paradigm to test whether rhythmic and discrete movements employ at least partially separate neural representations. Subjects were required to make circular movements of their right hand while they were exposed to a velocity-dependent force field that perturbed the circularity of the movement path. The direction of the force-field perturbation reversed at the end of each block of 20 revolutions. When subjects made only rhythmic or only discrete circular movements, interference was observed when switching between the two opposing force fields. However, when subjects alternated between blocks of rhythmic and discrete movements, such that each was uniquely associated with one of the perturbation directions, interference was significantly reduced. Only in this case did subjects learn to corepresent the two opposing perturbations, suggesting that different neural resources were employed for the two movement types. Our results provide further evidence that rhythmic and discrete movements employ at least partially separate control mechanisms in the motor system.

Motor learning.

Although learning a motor skill, such as a tennis stroke, feels like a unitary experience, researchers who study motor control and learning break the processes involved into a number of interacting components. These components can be organized into four main groups. First, skilled performance requires the effective and efficient gathering of sensory information, such as deciding where and when to direct one's gaze around the court, and thus an important component of skill acquisition involves learning how best to extract task-relevant information. Second, the performer must learn key features of the task such as the geometry and mechanics of the tennis racket and ball, the properties of the court surface, and how the wind affects the ball's flight. Third, the player needs to set up different classes of control that include predictive and reactive control mechanisms that generate appropriate motor commands to achieve the task goals, as well as compliance control that specifies, for example, the stiffness with which the arm holds the racket. Finally, the successful performer can learn higher-level skills such as anticipating and countering the opponent's strategy and making effective decisions about shot selection. In this Primer we shall consider these components of motor learning using as an example how we learn to play tennis.

Context-dependent partitioning of motor learning in bimanual movements.

Human subjects easily adapt to single dynamic or visuomotor perturbations. In contrast, when two opposing dynamic or visuomotor perturbations are presented sequentially, interference is often observed. We examined the effect of bimanual movement context on interference between opposing perturbations using pairs of contexts, in which the relative direction of movement between the two arms was different across the pair. When each perturbation direction was associated with a different bimanual context, such as movement of the arms in the same direction versus movement in the opposite direction, interference was dramatically reduced. This occurred over a short period of training and was seen for both dynamic and visuomotor perturbations, suggesting a partitioning of motor learning for the different bimanual contexts. Further support for this was found in a series of transfer experiments. Having learned a single dynamic or visuomotor perturbation in one bimanual context, subjects showed incomplete transfer of this learning when the context changed, even though the perturbation remained the same. In addition, we examined a bimanual context in which one arm was moved passively and show that the reduction in interference requires active movement. The sensory consequences of movement are thus insufficient to allow opposing perturbations to be co-represented. Our results suggest different bimanual movement contexts engage at least partially separate representations of dynamics and kinematics in the motor system.

Short- and long-term changes in joint co-contraction associated with motor learning as revealed from surface EMG.

In the field of motor control, two hypotheses have been controversial: whether the brain acquires internal models that generate accurate motor commands, or whether the brain avoids this by using the viscoelasticity of musculoskeletal system. Recent observations on relatively low stiffness during trained movements support the existence of internal models. However, no study has revealed the decrease in viscoelasticity associated with learning that would imply improvement of internal models as well as synergy between the two hypothetical mechanisms. Previously observed decreases in electromyogram (EMG) might have other explanations, such as trajectory modifications that reduce joint torques. To circumvent such complications, we required strict trajectory control and examined only successful trials having identical trajectory and torque profiles. Subjects were asked to perform a hand movement in unison with a target moving along a specified and unusual trajectory, with shoulder and elbow in the horizontal plane at the shoulder level. To evaluate joint viscoelasticity during the learning of this movement, we proposed an index of muscle co-contraction around the joint (IMCJ). The IMCJ was defined as the summation of the absolute values of antagonistic muscle torques around the joint and computed from the linear relation between surface EMG and joint torque. The IMCJ during isometric contraction, as well as during movements, was confirmed to correlate well with joint stiffness estimated using the conventional method, i.e., applying mechanical perturbations. Accordingly, the IMCJ during the learning of the movement was computed for each joint of each trial using estimated EMG-torque relationship. At the same time, the performance error for each trial was specified as the root mean square of the distance between the target and hand at each time step over the entire trajectory. The time-series data of IMCJ and performance error were decomposed into long-term components that showed decreases in IMCJ in accordance with learning with little change in the trajectory and short-term interactions between the IMCJ and performance error. A cross-correlation analysis and impulse responses both suggested that higher IMCJs follow poor performances, and lower IMCJs follow good performances within a few successive trials. Our results support the hypothesis that viscoelasticity contributes more when internal models are inaccurate, while internal models contribute more after the completion of learning. It is demonstrated that the CNS regulates viscoelasticity on a short- and long-term basis depending on performance error and finally acquires smooth and accurate movements while maintaining stability during the entire learning process.