99
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Evidence for Composite Cost Functions in Arm Movement Planning: An Inverse Optimal Control Approach

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          An important issue in motor control is understanding the basic principles underlying the accomplishment of natural movements. According to optimal control theory, the problem can be stated in these terms: what cost function do we optimize to coordinate the many more degrees of freedom than necessary to fulfill a specific motor goal? This question has not received a final answer yet, since what is optimized partly depends on the requirements of the task. Many cost functions were proposed in the past, and most of them were found to be in agreement with experimental data. Therefore, the actual principles on which the brain relies to achieve a certain motor behavior are still unclear. Existing results might suggest that movements are not the results of the minimization of single but rather of composite cost functions. In order to better clarify this last point, we consider an innovative experimental paradigm characterized by arm reaching with target redundancy. Within this framework, we make use of an inverse optimal control technique to automatically infer the (combination of) optimality criteria that best fit the experimental data. Results show that the subjects exhibited a consistent behavior during each experimental condition, even though the target point was not prescribed in advance. Inverse and direct optimal control together reveal that the average arm trajectories were best replicated when optimizing the combination of two cost functions, nominally a mix between the absolute work of torques and the integrated squared joint acceleration. Our results thus support the cost combination hypothesis and demonstrate that the recorded movements were closely linked to the combination of two complementary functions related to mechanical energy expenditure and joint-level smoothness.

          Author Summary

          To reach an object, the brain has to select among a set of possible arm trajectories that displace the hand from an initial to a final desired position. Because of the intrinsic redundancy characterizing the human arm, the number of admissible joint trajectories toward the goal is generally infinite. However, many studies have demonstrated that the range of actual trajectories can be limited to those that result from the fulfillment of some optimal rules. Various cost functions were shown to be relevant in the literature. A peculiar aspect of most of these costs is that each one of them aims at optimizing one specific feature of the movement. The necessary motor flexibility of everyday life, however, might rely on the combination of such cost functions rather than on a single one. Testing this cost combination hypothesis has never been attempted. To this aim we propose a reaching task involving target redundancy to facilitate the comparisons of different candidate costs and to identify the best-fitting one (possibly composite). Using a numerical inverse optimal control method, we show that most participants produced movements corresponding to a strict combination of two subjective costs linked to the mechanical energy consumption and the joint-level smoothness.

          Related collections

          Most cited references81

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Book: not found

          Biomechanics and Motor Control of Human Movement

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            THE WISDOM OF THE BODY

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Evidence for the flexible sensorimotor strategies predicted by optimal feedback control.

              Everyday movements pursue diverse and often conflicting mixtures of task goals, requiring sensorimotor strategies customized for the task at hand. Such customization is mostly ignored by traditional theories emphasizing movement geometry and servo control. In contrast, the relationship between the task and the strategy most suitable for accomplishing it lies at the core of our optimal feedback control theory of coordination. Here, we show that the predicted sensitivity to task goals affords natural explanations to a number of novel psychophysical findings. Our point of departure is the little-known fact that corrections for target perturbations introduced late in a reaching movement are incomplete. We show that this is not simply attributable to lack of time, in contradiction with alternative models and, somewhat paradoxically, in agreement with our model. Analysis of optimal feedback gains reveals that the effect is partly attributable to a previously unknown trade-off between stability and accuracy. This yields a testable prediction: if stability requirements are decreased, then accuracy should increase. We confirm the prediction experimentally in three-dimensional obstacle avoidance and interception tasks in which subjects hit a robotic target with programmable impedance. In additional agreement with the theory, we find that subjects do not rely on rigid control strategies but instead exploit every opportunity for increased performance. The modeling methodology needed to capture this extra flexibility is more general than the linear-quadratic methods we used previously. The results suggest that the remarkable flexibility of motor behavior arises from sensorimotor control laws optimized for composite cost functions.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS Comput Biol
                plos
                ploscomp
                PLoS Computational Biology
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, USA )
                1553-734X
                1553-7358
                October 2011
                October 2011
                13 October 2011
                : 7
                : 10
                : e1002183
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Italian Institute of Technology, Department of Robotics, Brain and Cognitive Sciences, Genoa, Italy
                [2 ]University Clinic Tübingen, Section for Computational Sensomotorics, Department of Cognitive Neurology, Hertie Institute of Clinical Brain Research and Center for Integrative Neurosciences, Tübingen, Germany
                [3 ]Institut Universitaire de France, Université de Bourgogne, Campus Universitaire, UFR STAPS, Dijon, France
                [4 ]INSERM, U887, Motricité-Plasticité, Dijon, France
                University College London, United Kingdom
                Author notes

                Conceived and designed the experiments: BB. Performed the experiments: BB EC. Analyzed the data: BB. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: BB FN. Wrote the paper: BB EC FN TP.

                Article
                PCOMPBIOL-D-11-00355
                10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002183
                3192804
                22022242
                a60d2be2-d595-4a8f-8f80-8fce660904fd
                Berret et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
                History
                : 15 March 2011
                : 18 July 2011
                Page count
                Pages: 18
                Categories
                Research Article
                Biology
                Neuroscience
                Motor Systems
                Mathematics
                Applied Mathematics
                Control Theory

                Quantitative & Systems biology
                Quantitative & Systems biology

                Comments

                Comment on this article