Are Complex Control Signals

Required for Human Arm

Movement?

PAUL L. GRIBBLE, DAVID J. OSTRY, VITTORIO SANGUINETI

AND RAFAEL LABOISSIE`RE
Introduction

Two hypotheses have been proposed in the literature:

1. For producing smooth arm motion, the changes in neural command signals
to the muscles (equilibrium shift) are monotonic in nature i.e. simple
signals

2. The changes in neural command signals are non-monotonic and time

varying in nature. Complex signals are needed to produce large torques and
fast movements
Evidence in favor of the complex signals hypothesis

Gomi and Kawato (1996)

o In this study, it was found that for a planar movement, the joint stiffness is
low before the movement, increases during movement and varies over the
course of movement in a non-monotonic fashion

o Using these empirically derived stiffness values, a hypothetical equilibrium

trajectory with a time varying form was computed.
Evidence in favor of the complex signals hypothesis

Latash and Gottlieb (1991)

o Procedure comparable to Gomi and Kawato (1996) was used to infer control
signals during fast, single joint movements

o External torque ramps were applied on subjects during elbow flexion and
non-monotonic equilibrium joint angle plot was inferred
In this paper

version of the equilibrium point hypothesis is used as a basis to

model human arm movement

This model is used to simulate the studies done by Gomi and Kawato
(1996), Bennet (1993), and Latash and Gottlieb (1991)

Results show that the non-monotonic nature of stiffness and joint

angles obtained in those studies can be predicted using simple
control signals with this model of arm
Arm model

6 muscles modeled Single joint flexors and extensors at shoulder

(pectoralis and deltoid) and elbow (biceps long head and triceps
lateral head) and the two joint muscles spanning both joints (biceps
short head and triceps long head)

Muscle moment arms for the extensors assumed constant 2 cm at

elbow and 4 cm at shoulder. Moment arms for flexors vary with joint
angles and are calculated on the basis of musculoskeletal geometry.
Values range from 2.5 to 5 cm
Arm model

Inertial and geometric properties of upper and lower arms mass:

2.1 and 1.65 kg, length: 0.34 and 0.46 m, moment of inertia about
center of mass: 0.015 and 0.022 kg-m2

Dependence of force modeled on muscle length, velocity of change

in length, graded force development, passive stiffness of muscle,
neural input, length and velocity dependent feedback and reflex
delays
Schematic of arm model
Muscle model

Muscle activation:
+
= + ( )
Where,
A Muscle activation
l Current muscle length
d Reflex delay
Threshold length required for recruiting motoneurons
Damping co-efficient = 0.06 s
Muscle model

Contractile force:
= () 1
Where,
Muscle force due to activation
Magnitude parameter related to force generation capability;
different for each muscle
c Form parameter; same for each muscle = 0.112 mm-1
A Muscle activation
Muscle model

Graded force development:

2 + 2 + =
Where,
Muscle force due to activation
M Instantaneous value of muscle force
Time constant = 15 ms
Muscle model

Velocity dependent force:

= 1 + 2 atan(3 + 4 ) + ( )
Where,
F Resultant force
M Instantaneous value of muscle force
1,2,3,4 Coefficients = 0.82, 0.50, 0.43 and 58 s/m respectively
l Current muscle length
r Resting muscle length
Muscle model

Passive stiffness:

o Biceps short head: 36.5 N/m

o Biceps long head: 190.9 N/m
o Deltoid: 258.5 N/m
o Pectoralis: 258.5 N/m
o Triceps lateral head: 209.9 N/m
o Triceps long head: 116.3 N/m
Organization of control signals

Activation signals are of two types:

o Changes threshold length of agonist and antagonist muscles in opposite

directions resulting in an equilibrium shift

o Changes threshold length of both muscles in the same direction (co-

contraction). In dynamics, it increases the area of activation for agonist and
antagonist muscles
Organization of control signals

For the simulations in this paper:

o Generated movements use a series of equally spaced equilibrium points

producing straight line equilibrium shift in hand space. values that minimize
the force are selected and shifted at a constant rate

o values associated with co-contraction chosen such that muscle forces

increase in equal proportions and there is no change in net joint torque.
Magnitude of co-contraction command was constant through all simulations
Simulations of multi-joint movements

Simulated the procedure used by Gomi and Kawato (1996) to

estimate stiffness and viscosity matrices

Motion was a straight line of length 40 cm and of duration 1 s

Duration of equilibrium shift was 0.7 s and co-contraction command

was 5 N
Simulations of multi-joint movements

72 perturbed movements were simulated by introducing small force

perturbations (0.1 N) in 8 different directions during 9 different point
of times during the movement

The perturbations resulted in displacements of 5 7 mm

Using these trials and a regression technique used by Gomi an Kawato

(1996), stiffness and viscosity matrices were computed for each of the
9 times
Joint stiffness matrix plot and stiffness ellipses
Computation of hypothetical equilibrium trajectory

Assumption: Joint torques vary linearly with the difference in actual and
equilibrium position and with velocity
Mathematically,
=
Where,
Calculated joint torque
R Stiffness matrix
D Viscosity matrix
equilibrium trajectory
and unperturbed movement position and velocity
Plots for equilibrium trajectory and tangential velocity
Notes on joint viscosity

Estimates of joint viscosity not provided by Gomi and Kawato (1996).

Estimates used in this paper correspond to values reported elsewhere

Maximum values for joint viscosity are approximately 2.5 3.0

Nms/rad, which is in range of 5 7% of maximum stiffness values

This is comparable to results obtained by Bennet et al. (1992)

Simulations for single joint movements

High stiffness values are required for high speed movements using
simple equilibrium shifts Literature

This simulation shows that rapid movements that have stiffness

values comparable to Bennet (1993) can be generated with simple
equilibrium shifts

In this simulation, movements performed by subjects in Bennet

(1993) study were simulated
Simulations for single joint movements

Model was constrained to produce single joint movements by constraining

orientation at shoulder

1 rad elbow flexions and extensions were produced using constant rate
equilibrium shifts and constant co-contraction commands

Perturbations of 8-10 were introduced using a simulated servo after the

onset of movement and the deflection was maintained throughout the
movement to match the velocity profiles of perturbed and unperturbed
movements to eliminate velocity dependent changes in torque
Simulation procedure used by Bennet (1993)
Comparison of results
Simulation of experiment by Latash and Gottlieb (1991)

The study claimed that non-monotonic equilibrium shifts are

necessary to generate torques large enough for rapid movements

In this simulation, constant equilibrium shifts and constant co-

contraction commands are used for elbow flexion of 50

Peak velocity of movement was 5 rad/s

Simulation of experiment by Latash and Gottlieb (1991)

Ramp torque was applied at the onset of the movement and

continued throughout the movement, reaching maximum value at
the end. One simulation was performed in absence of external torque

Final torque values simulated were: -10, -6, -4, -1, 1, 4, 6and 10 N-m

Elbow torque and joint angles were computed every 5 ms for all
simulations
Simulation of experiment by Latash and Gottlieb (1991)

Linear equation used:

= 1 2
Where,
T Vector of 9 torque values
Vector of 9 joint angles
1 Intercept of the torque-angle relationship
2 Slope of the torque-angle relationship
Result comparison
Discussion

It was shown that non-monotonic plots for joint stiffness and joint
angle values can be predicted even when simple equilibrium shifts are
applied when the model of arm described in this paper is used

The hypothetical control signals derived from measures of limb

impedance are dependent on the nature of model of force generation

The model used by Latash and Gottlieb (1991) and Gomi and Kawato
(1996) was a simple motor and did not include explicit muscle models
Discussion
Discussion

Effect of various parameters of model on simulated trajectory

Discussion

Gomi and Kawato (1996) assume that force varies linearly with the
difference between actual and equilibrium joint angle and with
velocity

Latash and Gottlieb (1991) assume that torque is linearly proportional

to joint angle but there is no velocity dependence

But it has been shown in literature that the relation between force
and muscle length and force and velocity of change in length both is
non-linear
Discussion

In this paper, it is shown that in context of simple point to point

movements, the control signals need not be complex

This paper does NOT imply that all control signals are simple. Complex
signals might be required for performing more complex movements
or when external loads are applied
Limitations of this model

It is assumed that passive muscle forces vary linearly with the

difference between current muscle length and muscle rest length.
But, passive muscle stiffness actually increase with muscle length

No contribution to force of tendon has been taken into account

No attempt has been made to implement force feedback due to

tendon organ afferents