4.4 Article

Limb position drift: Implications for control of posture and movement

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROPHYSIOLOGY
卷 90, 期 5, 页码 3105-3118

出版社

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/jn.00013.2003

关键词

-

资金

  1. NICHD NIH HHS [R01-HD-39311] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In the absence of visual feedback, subject reports of hand location tend to drift over time. Such drift has been attributed to a gradual reduction in the usefulness of proprioception to signal limb position. If this account is correct, drift should degrade the accuracy of movement distance and direction over a series of movements made without visual feedback. To test this hypothesis, we asked participants to perform six series of 75 repetitive movements from a visible start location to a visible target, in time with a regular, audible tone. Fingertip position feedback was given by a cursor during the first five trials in the series. Feedback was then removed, and participants were to continue on pace for the next 70 trials. Movements were made in two directions (30degrees and 120degrees) from each of three start locations (initial shoulder angles of 30degrees, 40degrees, 50degrees, and initial elbow angles of 90degrees). Over the 70 trials, the start location of each movement drifted, on average, 8 cm away from the initial start location. This drift varied systematically with movement direction, indicating that drift is related to movement production. However, despite these dramatic changes in hand position and joint configuration, movement distance and direction remained relatively constant. Inverse dynamics analysis revealed that movement preservation was accompanied by substantial modification of joint muscle torque. These results suggest that proprioception continues to be a reliable source of limb position information after prolonged time without vision, but that this information is used differently for maintaining limb position and for specifying movement trajectory.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据