The ability to formulate explicit mathematical
models of motor systems has played a central role in
recent progress in motor control research. As a result of
these modeling efforts and in particular the incorporation
of concepts drawn from control systems theory, ideas
about motor control have changed substantially. There is
growing emphasis on motor learning and particularly on
predictive or anticipatory aspects of control that are related
to the neural representation of dynamics. Two ideas have
become increasingly prominent in mathematical modeling
of motor functionforward internal models and inverse
dynamics. The notion of forward internal models which
has drawn from work in adaptive control arises from the
recognition that the nervous system takes account of
dynamics in motion planning. Inverse dynamics, a complementary
way of adjusting control signals to deal with
dynamics, has proved a simple means to establish the joint
torques necessary to produce desired movements. In this
paper, we review the force control formulation in which
inverse dynamics and forward internal models play a
central role. We present evidence in its favor and describe
its limitations. We note that inverse dynamics and forward
models are potential solutions to general problems in
motor controlhow the nervous system establishes a
mapping between desired movements and associated
control signals, and how control signals are adjusted in
the context of motor learning, dynamics and loads.
However, we find little empirical evidence that specifically
supports the inverse dynamics or forward internal model
proposals per se. We further conclude that the central idea
of the force control hypothesisthat control levels operate
through the central specification of forcesis flawed. This
is specifically evident in the context of attempts to
incorporate physiologically realistic muscle and reflex
mechanisms into the force control model. In particular, the
formulation offers no means to shift between postures
without triggering resistance due to postural stabilizing
mechanisms.
%0 Journal Article
%1 Ostry2003
%A Ostry, David J
%A Feldman, Anatol G
%D 2003
%J Experimental Brain Research
%K . Internal Introduction Inverse Posturemovement Predictive Stability dynamics mechanisms models problem
%P 275-288
%T A critical evaluation of the force control hypothesis in motor control
%V 153
%X The ability to formulate explicit mathematical
models of motor systems has played a central role in
recent progress in motor control research. As a result of
these modeling efforts and in particular the incorporation
of concepts drawn from control systems theory, ideas
about motor control have changed substantially. There is
growing emphasis on motor learning and particularly on
predictive or anticipatory aspects of control that are related
to the neural representation of dynamics. Two ideas have
become increasingly prominent in mathematical modeling
of motor functionforward internal models and inverse
dynamics. The notion of forward internal models which
has drawn from work in adaptive control arises from the
recognition that the nervous system takes account of
dynamics in motion planning. Inverse dynamics, a complementary
way of adjusting control signals to deal with
dynamics, has proved a simple means to establish the joint
torques necessary to produce desired movements. In this
paper, we review the force control formulation in which
inverse dynamics and forward internal models play a
central role. We present evidence in its favor and describe
its limitations. We note that inverse dynamics and forward
models are potential solutions to general problems in
motor controlhow the nervous system establishes a
mapping between desired movements and associated
control signals, and how control signals are adjusted in
the context of motor learning, dynamics and loads.
However, we find little empirical evidence that specifically
supports the inverse dynamics or forward internal model
proposals per se. We further conclude that the central idea
of the force control hypothesisthat control levels operate
through the central specification of forcesis flawed. This
is specifically evident in the context of attempts to
incorporate physiologically realistic muscle and reflex
mechanisms into the force control model. In particular, the
formulation offers no means to shift between postures
without triggering resistance due to postural stabilizing
mechanisms.
@article{Ostry2003,
abstract = {The ability to formulate explicit mathematical
models of motor systems has played a central role in
recent progress in motor control research. As a result of
these modeling efforts and in particular the incorporation
of concepts drawn from control systems theory, ideas
about motor control have changed substantially. There is
growing emphasis on motor learning and particularly on
predictive or anticipatory aspects of control that are related
to the neural representation of dynamics. Two ideas have
become increasingly prominent in mathematical modeling
of motor functionforward internal models and inverse
dynamics. The notion of forward internal models which
has drawn from work in adaptive control arises from the
recognition that the nervous system takes account of
dynamics in motion planning. Inverse dynamics, a complementary
way of adjusting control signals to deal with
dynamics, has proved a simple means to establish the joint
torques necessary to produce desired movements. In this
paper, we review the force control formulation in which
inverse dynamics and forward internal models play a
central role. We present evidence in its favor and describe
its limitations. We note that inverse dynamics and forward
models are potential solutions to general problems in
motor controlhow the nervous system establishes a
mapping between desired movements and associated
control signals, and how control signals are adjusted in
the context of motor learning, dynamics and loads.
However, we find little empirical evidence that specifically
supports the inverse dynamics or forward internal model
proposals per se. We further conclude that the central idea
of the force control hypothesisthat control levels operate
through the central specification of forcesis flawed. This
is specifically evident in the context of attempts to
incorporate physiologically realistic muscle and reflex
mechanisms into the force control model. In particular, the
formulation offers no means to shift between postures
without triggering resistance due to postural stabilizing
mechanisms.},
added-at = {2009-06-26T15:25:19.000+0200},
author = {Ostry, David J and Feldman, Anatol G},
biburl = {https://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/2328a694c51f1c1c1328865b3446ba29e/butz},
description = {diverse cognitive systems bib},
interhash = {90c7c60cd8170593c73d5e02520dcee2},
intrahash = {328a694c51f1c1c1328865b3446ba29e},
journal = {Experimental Brain Research},
keywords = {. Internal Introduction Inverse Posturemovement Predictive Stability dynamics mechanisms models problem},
owner = {martin},
pages = {275-288},
timestamp = {2009-06-26T15:25:49.000+0200},
title = {A critical evaluation of the force control hypothesis in motor control},
volume = 153,
year = 2003
}