4.2 Article

Effects of visual gain on force control at the elbow and ankle

Journal

EXPERIMENTAL BRAIN RESEARCH
Volume 200, Issue 1, Pages 67-79

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00221-009-1966-3

Keywords

Variability; Complexity; Motor control; Spectral analysis

Categories

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health [R01-NS-52318, R01-NS-58487]
  2. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF NEUROLOGICAL DISORDERS AND STROKE [R01NS058487, R01NS052318] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Visual feedback is essential when minimizing force fluctuations. Varying degrees of somatotopic organization have been shown in different regions of the brain for the upper and lower extremities, and visual feedback may be processed differently based on the body effector where feedback-based corrections are used. This study compared the effect of changes in visual gain on the control of steady-state force at the elbow and ankle. Ten subjects produced steady-state isometric force to targets at 5 and 40% of their maximum voluntary contraction at seven visual gain levels. Visual gain was used effectively at both joints to reduce variability of the force signal and to improve accuracy, with a greater effect of visual gain at the elbow than the ankle. Visual gain significantly decreased the regularity of force output, and this effect was more pronounced at the elbow than the ankle. There were accompanying changes in the proportion of power in the 0-4, 4-8, and 8-12 Hz frequency bins of the force signal across visual gain at the elbow. Changes in visual gain were accompanied by changes in both agonist and antagonist electromyographic (EMG) activation at the elbow. At the ankle joint, there were only changes in agonist EMG. The results suggest better use of visual information in the control of elbow force than ankle force and this improved control may be related to the changes in the pattern of agonist and antagonist activation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available