Reference Frames for Spinal Proprioception: Limb Endpoint Based
or Joint-Level Based?
G.
Bosco,1
R. E.
Poppele,1 and
J.
Eian1,2
1Department of Neuroscience and
2Graduate Program in Biomedical Engineering,
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455
 |
ABSTRACT |
Bosco, G.,
R. E. Poppele, and
J. Eian.
Reference Frames for Spinal Proprioception: Limb Endpoint Based
or Joint-Level Based?.
J. Neurophysiol. 83: 2931-2945, 2000.
Many sensorimotor neurons in the CNS encode
global parameters of limb movement and posture rather than specific
muscle or joint parameters. Our investigations of spinocerebellar
activity have demonstrated that these second-order spinal neurons also may encode proprioceptive information in a limb-based rather than joint-based reference frame. However, our finding that each foot position was determined by a unique combination of joint angles in the
passive limb made it difficult to distinguish unequivocally between a
limb-based and a joint-based representation. In this study, we
decoupled foot position from limb geometry by applying mechanical
constraints to individual hindlimb joints in anesthetized cats. We
quantified the effect of the joint constraints on limb geometry by
analyzing joint-angle covariance in the free and constrained conditions. One type of constraint, a rigid constraint of the knee
angle, both changed the covariance pattern and significantly reduced
the strength of joint-angle covariance. The other type, an elastic
constraint of the ankle angle, changed only the covariance pattern and
not its overall strength. We studied the effect of these constraints on
the activity in 70 dorsal spinocerebellar tract (DSCT) neurons using a
multivariate regression model, with limb axis length and orientation as
predictors of neuronal activity. This model also included an
experimental condition indicator variable that allowed significant
intercept or slope changes in the relationships between foot position
parameters and neuronal activity to be determined across conditions.
The result of this analysis was that the spatial tuning of 37/70
neurons (53%) was unaffected by the constraints, suggesting that they
were somehow able to signal foot position independently from the
specific joint angles. We also investigated the extent to which cell
activity represented individual joint angles by means of a regression
model based on a linear combination of joint angles. A backward
elimination of the insignificant predictors determined the set of
independent joint angles that best described the neuronal activity for
each experimental condition. Finally, by comparing the results of these
two approaches, we could determine whether a DSCT neuron represented
foot position, specific joint angles, or none of these variables
consistently. We found that 10/70 neurons (14%) represented one or
more specific joint-angles. The activity of another 27 neurons (39%)
was significantly affected by limb geometry changes, but 33 neurons
(47%) consistently elaborated a foot position representation in the
coordinates of the limb axis.
 |
INTRODUCTION |
Since Bernstein's original formulation
(Bernstein 1967
), principles of simplifying control
systems having multiple degrees of freedom, like those for animal
limbs, have become central issues in motor-control research. Various
lines of investigation have suggested that one possible strategy
employed by the CNS to avoid controlling the muscles or joint angles
individually might be to control endpoint kinematics instead. For
example, the neurophysiological finding that the population activity of
motor cortical neurons can predict the kinematics of the limb endpoint
would be compatible with this view (Schwartz 1994
).
Similarly, behavioral studies of cat posture have pointed to a specific
CNS control of limb endpoint position in the coordinates of limb axis
length and orientation as a strategy for maintaining stance in
quadrupeds (Lacquaniti et al. 1990
). Likewise, human
gait analysis has shown that limb axis length and orientation are
invariant across gait speeds. This kinematic invariance corresponds to
minimization of energy expenditure, suggesting that these variables,
which determine limb endpoint during gait, may effectively be
controlled by the CNS (Bianchi et al. 1998
).
Although some aspects of the control strategies may rely entirely on
feed-forward mechanisms, it is clear that sensory information plays a
role in refining motor strategies to the ongoing demands of a
behavioral task. Neurophysiological studies of the primary sensory
cortex in behaving monkeys showed that cortical neurons are broadly
tuned to the direction of movement and to the position of the hand
(Prud'homme and Kalaska 1994
). These properties are, in
fact, similar to those of neurons located in motor areas of the brain
(Schwartz et al. 1988
), suggesting that the processing of sensory information can be congruent with the motor strategy. Furthermore similar features also have been found in second-order sensory neurons projecting to the cerebellum from the spinal cord, i.e., at very early stages of sensory-motor processing (Bosco and Poppele 1993
, 1997
). The firing rates of the dorsal
spinocerebellar tract (DSCT) neurons are broadly tuned for movement
direction and foot position in limb-centered coordinates. For example,
during passive positioning of the cat hindlimb, the activity of DSCT neurons relates linearly to the limb axis length and orientation, illustrating that low-order sensory neurons may represent the same
kinematic variables that are likely to be controlled during stance or
gait (Lacquaniti et al. 1990
).
One issue that has received attention regarding CNS coding of
sensory-motor parameters is the extent to which neurons encode global
parameters such as limb endpoint or local variables such as joint
angles or muscle length or force (e.g., Evarts 1968
; Georgopulous et al. 1982
; Humphrey 1972
;
see also review by Donoghue and Sanes 1994
). We
tentatively resolved this issue for DSCT coding in favor of an endpoint
representation (Bosco and Poppele 1997
). However, it
remains unclear whether this is primarily an explicit representation
determined by neural circuitry or an implicit representation determined
primarily by limb biomechanics (Bosco et al. 1996
). Even
though we were able to show that the kinematics of the hindlimb endpoint were consistently better predictors of DSCT activity than were
individual joint angles for example, we could not directly rule out
biomechanical factors. The reason is that the passive hindlimb is
constrained by a biomechanical coupling across joints leading to a
covariation of joint angles. Thus instead of the 3 degrees of freedom
expected for independent joint motion, the joint interdependence leads
to just 2 degrees of freedom. Because the foot position relative to the
hip also has 2 degrees of freedom (limb axis length and orientation)
and each foot position is determined by a unique combination of joint
angles, an unambiguous distinction cannot be made between foot position
and joint-angle representations. In other words, DSCT activity may
simply relate to an individual joint angle or to a particular
combination of joint angles and, because of the coupling between
joints, appear to encode foot position. Alternatively, the neurons may
actually represent foot position by appropriately integrating sensory
information from different hindlimb areas.
In the present study we overcame this ambiguity by decoupling hindfoot
position from overall limb geometry. We constrained joint motion at the
ankle or knee so we could compare DSCT responses to endpoint positions
throughout a parasagittal workspace in a constrained and unconstrained
limb. We found with this approach that the responses of many DSCT
neurons were invariant with foot position, illustrating that at least
these cells actually do represent foot position.
 |
METHODS |
We report results from experiments on six adult cats
anesthetized with barbiturate (Nembutal, Abbott Pharmaceuticals; 35 mg/kg ip supplemented by intravenous administration to maintain a
surgical level of anesthesia throughout the experiment). The animals
were placed in a stereotaxic apparatus with the hips fixed in position by pins in the iliac crests. Limb kinematics (Fig.
1A) were recorded by means of
a video camera (Javelin Model 7242 CCD camera; 60 frames/s) and
digitized off-line using a motion analysis system (Motion Analysis,
Santa Rosa, CA, model VP110; see following text for details). The left
hindfoot was attached to a small platform connected to a
computer-controlled robot arm (Microbot Alphall+, Questech, Farmington
Hills, MI) (see also Bosco et al.1996
), that moved the
limb passively through a series of 20 foot positions (Fig.
1B, grey circles). Each foot position was held for 6 s
(see also Bosco and Poppele 1997
; Bosco et al.
1996
).

View larger version (15K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 1.
Hindlimb geometry. Stick figures represent the segments of the cat
hindlimb. A: hip (h), knee
(k), and ankle (a) angles are defined as
illustrated. Labels next to the segments of stick figure indicate
corresponding limb segments. The limb axis connects the hip to the foot
(thin line), and its coordinates are its length, L, and
orientation angle, O, measured clockwise from the
horizontal. B: the foot is attached to the platform arm
of a robot (illustrated), and the proximal hip joint is fixed by bone
pins in the iliac. Gray dots show the positions of 20 foot locations in
a parasagittal plane. The bold stick figure is in the reference
position. The thigh and shank segments are shown connected by a rigid
constraint; the shank segment is connected to the robot platform by an
elastic constraint (wavy line). The thin stick figures illustrate the
unconstrained limb geometry for 2 extreme positions in the workspace.
|
|
Joint constraints
In order to restrict joint movements without introducing
excessive sensory stimuli to the skin or muscles, we applied
constraints between surgically implanted bone pins. One pin was placed
in the femur ~5 cm from the femur head and another in the tibia ~6 cm from its distal end (Fig. 1B). In a preliminary study
reported earlier (Bosco and Poppele 1998
), we applied
elastic constraints (rubber bands) from the hip to the femur pin (hip
constraint), between bone pins (knee constraint), from the tibia pin to
the robot platform (ankle constraint), or from the femur pin to the robot (combined knee and ankle constraint). These constraints were
generally not very effective in uncoupling joint co-variation although
they did change the orientation of the covariance plane. Thus in this
study we adopted two constraints that were most effective altering
joint covariance. One was the elastic ankle constraint illustrated by
the wavy line in Fig. 1B, which affected primarily motion at
the ankle joint and we refer to it as "ankle elastic" constraint.
The other was a rigid Plexiglas strip fixed between the femoral and
tibial pins (straight line in Fig. 1B). Because this
constraint restricted motion at the knee joint almost completely, we
will refer to it as the "knee-fixed" constraint. We used the ankle
elastic constraint exclusively in one experiment and together with the
knee-fixed constraint in one other experiment. The other four
experiments employed only the knee-fixed constraint.
Kinematic measurements
Reflective markers were placed on the skin over the hip, knee,
ankle, and lateral metatarsal-phalangeal joint of the foot. The
digitized positions of markers in an image plane approximately parallel
to the plane formed by the hip, knee, and ankle markers were corrected
for skin slippage at the knee and for out-of-plane positions using an
algorithm that is described in detail in the APPENDIX. Note
that this represents a substantial procedural difference in data
collection and analysis from that described in our previous papers
(Bosco and Poppele 1997
; Bosco et al.
1996
). Previously the alignment of the image plane was not
carefully controlled, and we corrected only the position of the knee
marker for skin slippage. We assumed that the image plane projection of
markers provided a reasonably close indication of joint positions even though the cat hindlimb does not normally lie in a single plane (which
has been the common practice for studies like this; e.g., Brustein and Rossignol 1998
; Goslow et al.
1973
; Shen and Poppele 1995
).
We represented limb kinematics in the coordinates of the limb axis and
the joint angles. The limb axis is the segment joining the hip and foot
positions, and it defines the foot position in polar coordinates by its
orientation (O), the angle measured clockwise from the
horizontal to the axis, and length (L) in cm (Fig.
1A). The joint angles also are defined in Fig. 1A
as the angles measured clockwise between two limb segments. Although
the revised kinematic analysis described in the APPENDIX
may generate some discrepancies between the joint-angle data reported
previously (Bosco and Poppele 1997
) and those presented
here, it is not expected to effect the limb axis parameters because
they depend on a single marker (metatarsal-phalangeal joint of the
foot) given that the hip marker undergoes little or no movement.
Neuronal activity
We recorded unit activity from 72 DSCT axons in the dorsolateral
funiculus at the T10-T11
level of the spinal cord using insulated tungsten electrodes (5 M
,
FHC, Brunswick, ME). Units were identified as spinocerebellar by
antidromic activation from the white matter of the cerebellum or from
the restiform body. Neuronal activity was recorded continuously during
series of passive limb movements through the 20 positions of the
limb's workspace. We used two to four different movement patterns,
each designed to stop at all 20 positions but approaching the positions
from different directions. Thus a data set could contain 40-80 trials,
with two to four repetitions for each position. Except for the edge
positions, each trial was in a different movement direction (see
Bosco and Poppele 1997
). We aligned the neuronal
activity to the onset of limb movement and used only the activity
recorded between 4 and 5 s after movement onset. The rationale for
using this interval came from the previous finding (Bosco and
Poppele 1997
) that most of the variance in neuronal activity in
the fifth second after movement onset could be accounted for by foot
position, even though significant relationships to movement direction
still could be observed.
Data analysis
KINEMATIC DATA.
We represented the limb geometry for each foot position by the joint
angles in a three-dimensional joint space where each joint angle for a
given position is plotted as the difference from the mean angle across
the 20 positions. The data points in this representation fall within a
plane that explains a large fraction of variance in the data set. The
joint covariance illustrated by this result implies that joint-angle
motion is strongly coupled by biomechanical constraints that reduce the
limb degrees of freedom (Bosco et al. 1996
). Therefore
we quantified limb kinematics in the constrained and unconstrained
conditions by fitting least-square planes separately to each data set
and comparing plane orientations, defined by the direction cosines of
the vector normal to the plane, and the fraction of the variance
explained by each plane.
NEURONAL DATA.
We determined whether a neuron's activity was significantly modulated
by foot position by regressing the firing rate (F) recorded for each trial and averaged over the interval between 4 and 5 s
after movement onset against foot position expressed in the polar
coordinates of the limb axis length (L) and orientation (O)
|
(1)
|
where
0-
2 are
the coefficients and
is the residual error. The rationale for this
approach came from our earlier observation that most DSCT neurons
modulated by foot position showed linear relationships with the length
and the orientation of the limb axis (Bosco et al.
1996
). For the subset of neurons that were significantly
modulated according to Eq. 1 (P < 0.001),
we determined further whether the foot position representation was
invariant across experimental conditions. For this purpose, we modified the model in Eq. 1 to test the hypothesis that plane
parameters describing the relationships between firing rate and foot
position are different in the constrained and unconstrained conditions
|
(2)
|
A and K are binary variables associated
with the ankle and knee constraints, respectively. That is, the values
of A and K were set to 1 for the condition it
indicated and to 0 for the remaining conditions (Neter et al.
1996
). Thus the coefficients
3 and
6 indicated intercept offsets between control
and constrained conditions. Similarly, interactions between the foot
position terms (L and O) and each of the binary
variables, produced coefficients (
4,
5,
7, and
8), indicating changes in the slope of the
plane relative to the L or O axis. Finally, we
used t statistics on the coefficients associated with
A, K, and their interactions with foot-position terms
(L and O) setting a P < 0.01 as
cutoff to indicate significant differences across experimental
conditions. Note that, when only one constrained condition was used
only one binary variable (A or K) was added to
the model.
We also addressed the question of whether there was an invariant
relationship between firing rate and a given set of joint angles. For
this purpose, we applied the following regression model for each
experimental condition
|
(3)
|
where F is the neuronal firing rate and h, k,
a are the hip, the knee, and the ankle angles, respectively. (Note
that this is actually equivalent to the model in Eq. 1
because the limb length and orientation are linear functions of the
joint angles.) Because the joint angles may covary, we performed an
iterative backward elimination of insignificant variables to determine
which set of joint angles was related independently to a neuron's
firing rate. By setting a very low
value (<0.01) for predictors to enter the model, we also were able to eliminate predictors that did not
contribute independently because of their relationship with more
significant predictors (Bosco et al. 1996
; also
Wilkinson 1990
).
For each cell we also determined the preferred direction corresponding
to the direction of the maximal gradient of neural activity in the
space defined by limb length and orientation. For this purpose, it was
necessary to transform unit activity into a foot-centered coordinate
system to determine a gradient that did not depend on the units of
measure for length and orientation. We did this by using the following
transformation (Bosco and Poppele 1997
; Kettner
et al. 1988
)
|
(4)
|
where F represents neuronal firing rates estimated
from Eq. 1 for each foot position (L, O) in the
limb workspace defined in Fig. 1A. Any given foot position
then is re-expressed in the coordinates of a vector S having
its origin at the reference foot position illustrated in Fig. 1, and
pointing to the given foot position. The distance from the reference to
the given foot position is |S|, and the direction is
arg S (directions defined with 0° back and increasing
counterclockwise). f0 is the mean
firing rate over the entire workspace, and h is the rate of
change of discharge rate with distance from the origin in the direction
angle of the maximal activity gradient G (preferred direction).
We used this gradient function separately for each experimental
condition and compared the preferred direction angles, G, by
computing the cosine of their difference between the constrained and
unconstrained conditions.
 |
RESULTS |
Kinematic data
One interesting feature of the cat hindlimb is that movements
throughout the workspace are accompanied by a linear covariation among
the joint angles that effectively reduces the degrees of freedom of the
limb. Although the basis for this covariance pattern is likely to
reside in the biomechanics of the limb (Bosco et al.
1996
), neural strategies are also likely to actively modify and
even increase the joint coupling in behaving animals (Lacquaniti and Maioli 1994a
,b
). In this study, we altered the
biomechanical coupling by applying external constraints to the ankle
and knee joints. The effect of the constraints is to alter the
relationship among joint angles for a given position of the limb
endpoint. This is illustrated in Figs. 2,
3 and summarized in Table
1.

View larger version (16K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 2.
Joint-angle covariance planes with ankle constraint (cats
1 and 2). Each joint angle, expressed as the
difference from the mean angle across positions, is plotted for each of
the 20 foot positions in a 3-dimensional joint space. The points, each
representing a different foot position, lie close to a plane (compare
with Bosco et al. 1996 ). A regression plane is drawn for
each data set and presented from 2 perspectives, 1 showing the plane
orientation with respect to axes of the 3 joints, the other rotated,
edge-on view showing the scatter of data points off the plane.
A: passive unconstrained limb. B: ankle
elastic constraint imposed. C: knee fixed constraint in
cat 2.
|
|

View larger version (36K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 3.
Joint-angle covariance planes with knee constraint (cats
3-7). Same format as Fig. 2 for cats 3-7 in
which only the knee-fixed constraint was used. A:
passive unconstrained limb. B: knee-fixed constraint.
|
|
These figures show each set of joint angles for 20 foot
positions and the corresponding least-square covariance planes. Each data point plots the three joint-angle values for a given foot position. Note that the orientations of the covariance planes are
similar across experiments in the unconstrained condition (Figs.
2A and 3A). This is documented in Table 1 by the
similar direction cosines for each covariance plane and high percentage of variance they explained. The average covariance plane orientation is
somewhat different from that reported earlier, however (Bosco et
al. 1996
). We attribute this discrepancy to our previous
failure to account for the nonplanar configuration of the cat hindlimb and the associated errors in determining joint angles (see
METHODS and
APPENDIX).1
Overall, the effect of the ankle elastic constraint on passive limb
biomechanics was a slight rotation of the joint-angle co-variance plane
with respect to the control. In fact, as suggested by the high
percentage of variance explained by these planes (90.6 and 93.2%), the
ankle constraint did not significantly reduce the strength of the
biomechanical coupling, but it did change the orientation of the
covariance plane as indicated by the direction cosines in Table 1.
In contrast, the rigid knee constraint fixed between the femural and
tibial pins dramatically altered the biomechanical coupling among joint
angles (Figs. 2C and 3B). This constraint was
variably successful in actually fixing the knee joint angle, being most successful in cat 4 (Fig. 3B). Typically there
was 5-10° of rotation at the knee. In all cases, the joint
covariance plane rotated significantly with respect to the control
condition, and the strength of the biomechanical coupling also was
disrupted. The average fraction of variance explained by the
least-square planes was 47.9%, compared with a mean 85.2% in the
control condition.
Our major interest here is to distinguish between a neural
representation of limb geometry based on joint-angle coordinates and a
representation based on the foot position alone. Because the knee-fixed
constraint was more successful in decoupling the relationship between
endpoint and joint angles, those results will be emphasized.
Neuronal data
The activity of a substantial fraction of the DSCT neurons
recorded in the lower thoracic spinal cord is broadly tuned with respect to foot position (Bosco and Poppele 1993
). In
particular, there is a linear relationship between neuronal firing
rates and the length and the orientation of the limb axis (which define foot position in polar coordinates). This result provided the rationale
for quantifying DSCT positional modulation with a linear model based on
limb axis length and orientation as predictors of firing activity
(METHODS, Eq. 1). In this series of experiments, the model explained a significant fraction of variance
(R2 > 0.4, P < 0.0001) in the firing rate of 70 of 74 DSCT neurons examined (95%).
FOOT-POSITION REPRESENTATION.
To determine whether the foot-position representation changed as a
result of the applied constraints, we used a regression model in which
we introduced binary variables associated with the constrained
conditions as firing rate predictors along with the length and the
orientation of the limb axis (METHODS, Eq. 2).
Coefficients associated with these binary variables measured the
effects of a constraint on the intercept and slope of the relationships
between firing rates and foot position.
The results of this analysis indicate that the firing rates of some
neurons were not affected by the constraints, whereas others were
(Figs. 4 and
5). Neurons 2576 and
2710 are examples that were not significantly
affected (Fig. 4, A-F). Regression planes
describing their relationships between firing rate and foot position
were, in fact, identical for the unconstrained and constrained
conditions (compare 4, A and D, with B
and E, respectively). In agreement with this qualitative
judgement, the regression analysis (Eq. 2) showed that the
coefficients associated with the binary variables A or
K were not significant. The firing rate values predicted by
this model are plotted against the firing rate values actually recorded
for cells 2576 and 2710 (Fig. 4, C and
F) during the unconstrained (open triangles) and constrained
(filled circles) conditions overlapped extensively and the
corresponding regression lines coincided. Overall, 28 of the 70 modulated neurons (40%) failed to show significant changes in their
modulation with foot position after the application of joint
constraints (P < 0.01).

View larger version (25K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 4.
Relation between dorsal spinocerebellar tract (DSCT) unit firing rates
and the length and orientation of the hindlimb axis. Data and
regression analysis for 3 cells, 2576
(A-C); 2710 (D-F), and
2671 (G-I). First column
in each case shows the firing rate measured in each foot position ( 4
trials per position) plotted against the length and orientation of the
limb axis for the passive unconstrained limb. The plane is the
least-squares regression fit to the data (Eq. 1).
Second column shows the data obtained in the constrained
joint condition, ankle elastic for 2576 and knee fixed
for the other 2. Third column shows the relation between
actual firing rates (Real) and the rates predicted from the regression
model (Predicted; Eq. 2) for the unconstrained (filled
symbols) and constrained (open symbols) conditions and their respective
least-squares regression fit, bold and thin lines.
|
|

View larger version (19K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 5.
Relation between firing rate and limb axis length and orientation. Same
format as for Fig. 4 for cells 2567
(A-C) and 2652 (D-F).
|
|
The firing rates of another nine neurons (13%) increased or decreased
uniformly over the workspace as a result of the limb geometry changes
caused by the joint constraints. However, the slope of the relation
between firing rate and foot position for these neurons remained
unchanged. One example of this group of neurons is represented by
cell 2671 (Fig. 4, G-I).
Thirty-three neurons (37%) showed significant changes in their
foot-position-related activity after the application of joint constraints. Two of these (cells 2567 and 2652)
are illustrated in Fig. 5. Note that the regression planes for the
control (Fig. 5, A and D) and constrained
conditions (B and E) are different in both
intercept and slope, suggesting that the spatial tuning of the neurons
depended on the overall geometry of the limb rather than simply on the
position of the endpoint.
The effect of a joint constraint on the activity pattern of a cell was
not simply all-or-none, although we did assess the effect using a very
conservative cutoff level (P < 0.01). In some cases
the constraint effects were clear, whereas in others they were very
small but appeared consistent. For example, cell 2710 shows
a small but consistent change in the overall firing level that is
evident in Fig. 4E. One way to examine this issue across the
DSCT population is to examine the distribution the t
statistic of the regression across cells. Figure
6A shows a broad distribution of significance values with a median value of 2.57, corresponding to a
P value of 0.013. We would estimate from this analysis that about half of the neurons were affected to some extent by the constraint and the other half were more likely unaffected.

View larger version (29K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 6.
Distribution of the effects of constraining hindlimb joints.
A: distribution of the levels of significance, given by
the t value for the maximum change in a coefficient
value between the unconstrained and knee-constrained condition for the
relation of firing rate to limb axis position (t value
joint constraint). The median value of the distribution is 2.57, corresponding to a P value of 0.013. B:
distribution of the cosines of differences between each cell's
preferred direction angle in the constrained and unconstrained limb.
The median value of the cosine distribution is 0.91, corresponding to
an angle difference of 23°.
|
|
DIRECTION OF MAXIMAL ACTIVITY GRADIENT.
The slope changes in the relationships between neural activity and foot
position indicate changes in sensitivity but not necessarily in the
direction of the gradient of positional activity. Consider for example,
a case for which the slopes for both limb axis parameters (L
and O) change proportionally. This would indicate an overall change in sensitivity to position, but the direction of the gradient of
neuronal activity, i.e., the cell's preferred direction, would be
unchanged. Instead differential sensitivity changes along the length
and orientation dimensions would indicate changes in the preferred
direction and possibly sensitivity changes also.
The analysis of significance we presented in the preceding text does
not distinguish between these two possibilities. Furthermore because
the limb parameters have different units (length and angle), it is
difficult to compare changes in their regression slopes directly.
Therefore we employed a coordinate transformation that allowed us to
determine each neuron's preferred tuning direction with respect to
foot position (see METHODS, Eq. 4). In Fig.
6B, we plot the distribution of the cosine of the
differences between the preferred directions in the constrained and
unconstrained condition for each cell. The result of this analysis
shows that the preferred directions did not change significantly for
about half of the cells (cosine values near 1.0). The median value was 0.919, corresponding to a difference in preferred directions of 23°.
This would correspond to no change if the error in determining the
preferred direction by this method were of the order of
±12°.2
JOINT-ANGLE REPRESENTATIONS.
It appears from the preceding analysis that some fraction, perhaps as
many as half of the DSCT neurons do in some way encode the limb
endpoint position explicitly. To gain some insight about extent of
sensory processing contributing to this behavior, we also examined each
cell's behavior with respect to joint angle changes.
For this purpose, we used a regression model based on joint-angle
coordinates (Eq. 3) to determine the set of joint angles that related to the neuronal activity for a given experimental condition. Furthermore by eliminating the insignificant relationships or relationships with joint angles that covaried with other joint angles that were more strongly correlated with cell activity, we could
estimate which joint angles most strongly predicted a cell's firing
rate. In the following section, we consider again the four specific
examples presented in Figs. 4 and 5 to illustrate various strengths of
correlation with joint angles and foot positions.
First consider the simple scenario of a cell that responds
stereotypically to a given joint angle or a particular combination of
joint angles. One example is the behavior of cell 2567, which responded differently in the constrained and unconstrained
conditions (Fig. 7; same cell as Fig. 5,
A and B). Scatter-plots of firing rates against
hip angle in Fig. 7, B and C show that this
neuron related the same way to hip angle in both conditions. Moreover, plots of both firing activity (A) and hip angle values
(D) in the two conditions showed similar systematic
deviations about the identity line. We would interpret this result as
indicating that this neuron's activity may be tracking the hip angle.

View larger version (26K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 7.
Relation between DSCT unit firing and joint angles for cell
2567. A: firing rate in each foot position with the elastic
ankle joint constraint vs. the firing rates for the same positions in
the unconstrained (passive) condition. B and
C: firing rate vs. hip angle for the unconstrained
(B) and constrained (C) conditions.
D: hip angle measured in the constrained and
unconstrained conditions. E-G: Same as
B-D, respectively for the knee angle.
H-J: same as B-D, respectively for the
ankle angle.
|
|
Another cell the activity of which was related primarily to the
hip angle in both constrained and unconstrained conditions was
cell 2710 (Fig. 8; same cell
as Fig. 4, D and E). However, in this case the
relationship between firing rate and hip angle was different in the
control condition, when it was best approximated by a linear function
(B), and in the constrained condition, when it was best fit
was a quadratic function (C). In contrast, this neuron
showed essentially invariant representations of the foot position (limb
axis length and orientation) across conditions as shown by the
scatter-plot of the firing rates in the control versus constrained
conditions (A). All data points are distributed about evenly
above and below a line that is parallel to the identity line, whereas
the same plot for the hip angle values (D) shows a
systematic trend in the data relative to the identity line. This result
would argue for a neuronal representation of foot position rather than
hip angle.
A more complex possibility is that the activity of DSCT neurons may
relate to different sets of joint angles in the passive and constrained
conditions. For example, the activity of cell 2652 (Fig.
9; same cell as in Fig. 5, D
and E) related most clearly to the hip angle in the
unconstrained condition (B) yet the ankle angle became the
strongest firing rate predictor in the constrained condition
(I). Actually, the regression analysis showed that all three
joint angles were significantly related to the firing activity in the
control condition, whereas only the hip and ankle angles were the
significant predictors in the constrained condition. This neuron,
however, did not show an invariant relationship to foot position
(A) and therefore did not relate consistently to any of the
kinematic variables we measured, although it was clearly modulated by
passive limb positioning across the workspace.
A somewhat less obvious example, but one that did relate consistently
to the foot position, was cell 2576 (Fig.
10; same cell as in Fig. 4,
A and B). In this case, the knee angle was a
significant predictor in both control and constrained conditions
(E and F). In the control condition, the stepwise
regression analysis eliminated the hip angle as a predictor despite its
significant correlation with firing rate (Fig. 10B) because
of its relatively high correlation with the other two angles (knee,
r = 0.48; ankle, r = 0.73). Although there was a weak relationship between firing rate and ankle angle (H), it was, nevertheless, significant and not redundant
given the low correlation between ankle and knee angles
(r = 0.13). In the constrained condition, the
correlation strengths between pairs of joint angles were more evenly
distributed (r = ~0.5 for all joint-angle pairs) and
the relationship between firing rate and ankle angle became weaker
(I), making the hip angle (C) the only other
significant predictor. Although this argument against a simple
joint-angle representation may appear subtle, it is substantiated by
the observation that the overall relation between firing rate and foot
position was unaffected by the constraint (A) even though the individual joint angles for each limb position deviated
systematically in the two conditions (D, G, and
J). Taken together these results suggest that this DSCT
neuron was integrating sensory information across joints to elaborate a
representation of foot position independently from the actual
combination of joint angles.
A summary of all the results from the various types of analysis is
presented in Table 2. From this summary
we may conclude that only 10/70 cells (14%) responding to foot
positioning did so by responding consistently to specific joint angles
across conditions. The activity of four of these cells also related
consistently to the limb endpoint, whereas the activity of the other
six did not. Thus of the 33 neurons (47%) for which the activity did
not relate consistently to foot position, 27 (39%) did not relate consistently to any of the kinematic variables we measured. The activity of the other 53% of the responsive cells was essentially invariant with respect to foot position when the joint covariance pattern was altered.
 |
DISCUSSION |
The principal finding of this study is that the activity of a
significant fraction of the DSCT population represents the hindlimb endpoint position as distinct from the specific limb geometry associated with the endpoint. The implication of this result is that
the circuitry of the DSCT must somehow compute endpoint position from
the sensory information derived from various joints and muscles. It
seemed initially that this computation might be assisted in some way by
the biomechanical properties of the passive limb which lead to a
covariant relationship among joint angles. However, when this
relationship was disrupted by means of joint-angle constraints, the
endpoint representation persisted in about half of the cells we tested.
We used two types of constraints. One was an elastic constraint across
the ankle joint. This constraint had only subtle effects on limb
kinematics, including a negligible effect on the strength of
joint-angle coupling, but it did alter the relative coupling among
joint angles and also the response to foot position for some cells
(e.g., cell 2567). The other constraint, which held the knee
angle nearly constant, significantly disrupted both the limb kinematics
and the joint-angle coupling and was ultimately the most effective in
altering responses to foot position. In a preliminary study reported
earlier (Bosco and Poppele 1997
), we also applied
elastic constraints separately to each of the three joints. Similar to
the results of this study, we found that at least 30% of the cells had
the same response in each constraint condition. Thus the fraction of
cells the activity of which correlates consistently with limb endpoint
position does not appear to depend on which joint was constrained or
the degree to which joint coupling was disrupted.
There are at least two possible mechanisms that could explain this
finding. One possibility is a wide sensory convergence from the
hindlimb onto the DSCT neurons. This could allow the DSCT circuitry to
compute an estimate of foot position independently from the overall
limb geometry by redistributing the relative weights of the afferent
input. However, another possibility is that the neuronal firing
activity may relate primarily to a single joint angle the motion of
which is not much affected by the limb constraint. In this case, the
activity would be actually monitoring a joint angle but would appear to
be related to the limb axis only because these two kinematic variables covary.
To address this issue, we used a regression model based on the
combinations of joint angles that determined foot positions in the
constrained and unconstrained conditions. The analysis showed that the
activity of 20 of the 37 neurons having an invariant representation of
foot position (except for intercept changes) was related to different
combinations of joint angles across constraint conditions as expected
for a computational mechanism based on sensory integration. The
activity of remaining 17 neurons related to the same joint angles in
the two conditions and therefore could have been determined primarily
by biomechanical constraints rather than by sensory integration.
However, we found that the activity of a number of these cells did not
faithfully mirror the joint-angle differences imposed by the
constraints (e.g., cell 2710), implying the presence of
sensory integration in some of these cases as well.
The same issue was examined for the 33 neurons that did not show
invariant relationships with the foot position. A subgroup of six of
these neurons did relate to the same joint angles or combination of
joint angles in constrained and unconstrained conditions. However, the
activity of the remaining 27 DSCT neurons related to different
joint-angle combinations in different experimental conditions. This
result (illustrated for cell 2652 in Fig. 5, D-F) is more difficult to interpret. It suggests that these
neurons may be encoding some aspects of limb geometry, and it certainly speaks in favor of sensory convergence.
The data presented here suggest that about half of the DSCT neurons we
sampled encode information in the reference frame of the limb endpoint
kinematics. That is, their spatial tuning direction is basically
unaltered by joint constraint. The other half appear to encode
information in a reference frame that may be more closely tied to the
actual joint angles. It is not likely that this type of dichotomy
between a joint-based and limb endpoint representation is unique to the
spinocerebellar system, however, because it also has been described in
other areas of the CNS involved in sensory-motor integration.
In motor cortex for example, Scott and Kalaska (1997)
investigated neuronal activity in a visually guided reaching task
performed with two different arm postures. They reported significant
changes in the firing properties of most (70%) motor cortical
neurons related to overall arm posture. However, many of the
significant changes in cell behavior were restricted to overall firing
levels or modulation amplitudes so that significant changes in
preferred directions occurred for only ~50% of the neurons. A
similar fraction of motor cortical cells showed invariant preferred
tuning directions in a recent study that dissociated muscle actions
from the directions of wrist movements (Kakei et al.
1999
). These results were interpreted to suggest that the
ensemble of cells in primary motor cortex having the two types of
representation might represent a transformation between muscle- or
joint-based and endpoint representations.
The presence of the separate representations of joints and endpoint at
the early stages of sensory processing in the spinal cord also may
suggest other functional roles. For example, it may provide specific
sensory information about limb mechanics for a given endpoint position
through a comparison of endpoint- and joint-related information.
Consider for example the case of maintaining stance, a behavior that
does involve the spinocerebellum. Experimental evidence suggests that
quadrupeds maintain stance by controlling the length and the
orientation of the limb axis, that is, the limb endpoint
(Lacquaniti et al. 1990
). A possible strategy for
accomplishing this was suggested by the finding that the limb axis
geometry maintained in stance is associated with a particular
joint-angle covariance pattern. The advantages of this strategy in
simplifying the control of a multidegree of freedom limb were discussed
by Lacquaniti and Maioli (1994b)
. Such a strategy might
be implemented by producing muscle activity patterns that appropriately
modify the biomechanical coupling among joints. If so, the control task
for stance would be to establish a covariant relation among joint
angles such that each desired endpoint, in this case, the ones
associated with a nearly vertical limb axis, maps onto a set of joint
angles in the covariance plane. Maintaining the desired set of
endpoints then would be accomplished by maintaining the established
joint-angle covariance. Any perturbation in this system could be
compensated by sensing a mismatch between an endpoint-related signal
and a joint-angle-related signal, which then could be applied as an
error signal to reestablish the appropriate joint-angle covariance.
We might speculate that the spinocerebellar system could play a role in
this proposed compensation. If each endpoint-related DSCT cell were
matched somehow with a corresponding joint-related cell having a
congruent endpoint-related activity for a given behavioral state (such
as quiet stance), then as long as their activities remained congruent,
it would indicate a consistent relationship between endpoint and
joint-angle covariance. Any mismatch in their respective signals would
indicate a deviation from the desired joint-angle covariance
state.3 If the
cerebellum were able to detect mismatches in the signals of such paired
spinocerebellar neurons, it might initiate some control signal to
reestablish the desired joint-angle covariance, for example, by
modulating limb reflexes.
We should consider, however, that DSCT cells also may encode other than
kinematic parameters. In fact, the joint constraints we used imposed
external forces on the hindlimb that may strongly influence muscle and
skin receptors that project to the DSCT. The implication is that models
of neuronal activity such as ours that are based exclusively on limb
kinematics may not capture the features of neuronal activity that are
primarily sensitive to the distribution of forces across the limb. In
the companion paper, we start addressing this issue by studying the
effect of activating selective muscle groups on the DSCT representation of limb position (Bosco and Poppele 2000
).
 |
APPENDIX |
In some circumstances it is not convenient or cost-effective to
measure three-dimensional (3-D) limb kinematics directly, so it is
desirable to have a two-dimensional (2-D) measurement technique that
can accurately portray 3-D limb geometry. Such a method is described in
this appendix.
Two-dimensional measurements often are made on a projection of joint
markers onto an imaging plane. This method is accurate only when all of
the joints lie in a single plane that is parallel to the imaging plane.
Although these conditions may be approximately met for certain hindlimb
configurations in the cat, they do not hold in general. For example,
the ankle and knee joints may translate out of a parasagittal leg plane
under some conditions (see Fig. A1).
Under such conditions, a given knee angle, K, determined
from 2-D marker data, will appear to increase (K') as the
plane defined by the hip, knee, and ankle markers rotates to a position
no longer parallel to the imaging plane. At the same time, distances
between hip and knee and between knee and ankle markers appear to
decrease. Under such conditions, joint angles will appear to change as
the leg plane rotates leading to systematic errors in joint-angle estimates as the limb moves.

View larger version (16K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. A1.
Out-of plane rotation. A: projection of markers for hip
(H), knee (K), ankle (A),
and toe (T) joints. B: projection of knee
(K') rotated out or the parasagittal leg plane.
|
|
The method described in the following text corrects for these
out-of-plane rotations by considering the geometry of the experimental set-up. This includes the known distances between joint markers (i.e.,
the lengths of the limb segments) and the location of at least one
marker along a line perpendicular to the imaging plane. In our case,
the distance of the toe marker from the midsagittal plane of the cat
was constant in all trajectories because the robot moved the toe in a
parasagittal plane perpendicular to the imaging plane.
The algorithm explanation requires the definition of two reference
points: the spatial invariant point and the image invariant point.
Given a set of planes parallel to the 2-D imaging plane containing the
markers to be imaged, a spatial invariant point is defined as the
unique point in any plane the image of which is invariant under
translations of the point perpendicular to the plane. The location of
the image of a spatial invariant point is the image invariant point
(s' in Fig. A2). The
location of the spatial invariant point in the reference plane
(Z = 0) is defined as the origin [S(0,0,0)
in Fig. A2] of the 3-D coordinates of spatial points,
P(X, Y, Z) having corresponding image points,
p'(x, y).
Next we account for the fact that the projection of a point,
P, onto the image plane, p', depends on the
distance of P from the camera (the perspective problem). We
treat this here in terms of a dilation mapping, which maps the
z-axis locations of spatial objects into dilation factors,
dz
The dilation factors, dz, are
used to determine the coordinate X (or Y) for the
point P(X, Y, Z) given its image projection p'(x, y). The problem is to determine a new
p"(x, y) that represents the point
P(X, Y, Z) translated along the z axis
to P(X, Y, 0), where the distance Z is
known (see Fig. A3).
Let r = X/x' be the calibration
relating a distance on plane Z = 0 to its image
distance on the imaging plane, then
Note that
since the triangle F, S, Q is congruent to triangle
P(X, Y, Z), P(X, Y, 0),
Q for any positive Z (see Fig. A3). Also note that
Since we can only determine (X +
X) and not X alone from the image, we may
use these geometric considerations to determine X as follows
so the representation of the dilation mapping becomes
|
(A1)
|
where r is the calibration factor, m is
the reciprocal of distance the from the spatial invariant point to the
focal point of the image, and Z is the known distance
between the spatial point P(X, Y, Z) and the
reference plane. It can be shown that the same dilation factor equation
is also valid for negative values of Z.
The task now is to determine P(X, Y, Z) for
a given marker in space. Consider the ankle marker in our case which
has the coordinates (Xa, Ya, Za) relative to the spatial
invariant point S(0,0,0). Using the dilation equation,
Eq. A1, the ankle position in space can be expressed as
|
(A2)
|
where xa and ya are the ankle marker
coordinates in the imaging plane (relative to the image invariant
point), and m and r are the predetermined
dilation equation parameters. In a similar fashion, the spatial
position of the toe, (Xt, Yt, Zt) can be expressed as
|
(A3)
|
The Z location of the toe, Zt, in
Eq. A3 is known in our application, and we define it as
Zt = 0. In general at least one Z location
must be known. From this, the location of the toe marker in space,
(Xt, Yt, Zt), can be determined in Eq. A3. A
similar procedure could be used to determine the spatial location of
the ankle marker in Eq. A2 if Za was known. We
may determine Za from the known distance L
between the toe and ankle joint markers by using the Pythagorean
theorem
|
(A4)
|
This equation contains three unknowns, namely Xa,
Ya, and Za. However, the number of unknowns can be
reduced to one if Xa and Ya are expressed in
terms of their image coordinates and the dilation equation
Eq. A4 then can be written as
|
(A5)
|
Here, only Za is unknown, and the solution
for Za in Eq. A5 is used in Eq. A3 to
compute the ankle position Xa, Ya, Za. An analogous
procedure then can be used to determine the knee marker location in
space. In fact, if error propagation was not an issue, a method such as
this could be bootstrapped indefinitely.
Note that because Eq. A5 is quadratic, it yields two values
of Za. The correct solution in our case was obvious from the
hindlimb kinematics. In the case where both solutions have the same
sign, one solution is always clearly out of the experimental workspace. When the two solutions have opposite signs, then it may be necessary to
know whether the marker is in front of or behind the reference plane.
 |
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
The authors thank A. Rankin for help and assistance on this project
and Drs. M. Flanders and J. Soechting for critical and helpful comments
on the manuscript. J. Eian wrote the APPENDIX.
This research was supported by National Institute of Neurological
Disorders and Stroke Grant NS-21143.
 |
FOOTNOTES |
Address for reprint requests: R. E. Poppele, 6-145 Jackson Hall,
University of Minnesota, 321 Church St. SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455.
The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the
payment of page charges. The article must therefore be hereby marked
"advertisement" in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section
1734 solely to indicate this fact.
1
Previously we assumed a negligible inward or outward
rotation of limb segments and thus did not correct data for
out-of-plane marker positions. However, the cat does not stand with the
hindlimb in a single plane. The plane defined by the foot, ankle, and
knee markers tends to be rotated laterally out of a parasagittal plane defined by the hip, knee, and ankle markers. This rotation becomes pronounced at the extremes of the workspace where is it also
accompanied by outward rotations of the upper leg, leading to
inaccurate estimates of joint angles and their covariance plane. It may
be consistent with this view that the joint-angle covariance planes
reported for the ankle elastic constraint (Fig. 2B) are
similar to those described in earlier experiments without constraints.
A possible interpretation of this result is that the ankle-constraint
restricted inward/outward rotations of the foot at the ankle joint,
creating the experimental analogue of the planar movement assumption
made previously.
2
This level of uncertainty seems consistent with
measurements of preferred direction we reported earlier (Bosco
and Poppele 1997
). In that case, a cosine model was used to
summarize responses to center-out or out-center movements from a given
foot position. Typical variance of 10-20° was found over successive
measures (for example, Fig. 3 in Bosco and Poppele
1997
), suggesting that intertrial variability and measurement
accuracy could account for an uncertainty of the order of ±12°.
3
For the sake of clarity, we emphasized that comparisons
be made between activities in endpoint- and joint-related cells, as if
these were clear subpopulations of cells. In fact, as suggested in Fig.
6A, the properties of joint- and endpoint-relatedness may be relative and distributed through the DSCT population. However, for this proposed comparison with work, it should only be necessary that cells more related to endpoint be consistently paired with cells
more related to joints.
Received 30 August 1999; accepted in final form 7 February 2000.
 |
REFERENCES |
-
Bernstein, N. A.
The Co-Ordination and Regulation of Movements., Oxford, UK: Oxford Press, 1967.
-
Bianchi, L.,
Angelini, D.,
Orani, D. P.,
and Lacquaniti, F.
Kinematic coordination in human gait: relation to mechanical energy cost.
J. Neurophysiol.
79:
2155-2170, 1998[Abstract/Free Full Text].
-
Brustein, E.,
and Rossignol, S.
Recovery of locomotion after ventral and ventrolateral spinal lesions in the cat.
J. Neurophysiol.
80:
1245-1267, 1998[Abstract/Free Full Text].
-
Bosco, G.,
and Poppele, R. E.
Broad directional tuning in spinal projections to the cerebellum.
J. Neurophysiol.
70:
863-866, 1993[Abstract/Free Full Text].
-
Bosco, G.,
and Poppele, R. E.
Representation of multiple kinematic parameters of the cat hindlimb in spinocerebellar activity.
J. Neurophysiol.
78:
1421-1432, 1997[Abstract/Free Full Text].
-
Bosco, G.,
and Poppele, R. E.
Do DSCT neurons encode limb kinematics?
Neural Control Mov. Abstr.
3:
B1, 1998.
-
Bosco, G.,
and Poppele, R. E.
Reference frames for spinal proprioception: kinematics based or kinetics based?
J. Neurophysiol.
83:
2946-2955, 2000[Abstract/Free Full Text].
-
Bosco, G.,
Rankin, A.,
and Poppele, R. E.
Representation of passive hindlimb postures in cat spinocerebellar activity.
J. Neurophysiol.
76:
715-726, 1996[Abstract/Free Full Text].
-
Donoghue, J. P.,
and Sanes, J. N.
Motor areas of the cerebral cortex.
J. Clin. Neurophysiol.
11:
382-396, 1994[ISI][Medline].
-
Evarts, E. V.
Relation of pyramidal tract activity to force exerted during voluntary movement.
J. Neurophysiol.
31:
14-27, 1968[Free Full Text].
-
Georgopulous, A. P.,
Kalaska, J. F.,
Caminiti, R.,
and Massey, J. T.
On the relations between the direction of two-dimensional arm movements and cell discharge in primary motor cortex.
J. Neurosci.
2:
1527-1537, 1982[Abstract].
-
Goslow, G. E.,
Reinking, R. M.,
and Stuart, D. G.
The cat step cycle: hind limb joint angles and muscle lengths during unrestrained locomotion.
J. Morphol.
141:
1-41, 1973[ISI][Medline].
-
Humphrey, D. R.
Relating motor cortex spike trains to measures of motor performance.
Brain Res.
40:
7-18, 1972[ISI][Medline].
-
Kakei, S.,
Hoffman, D. S.,
and Strick, P. L.
Muscle and movement representations in the primary motor cortex.
Science
285:
2136-2139, 1999[Abstract/Free Full Text].
-
Kettner, R. E.,
Schwartz, A. B.,
and Georgopoulos, A. P.
Primate motor cortex and free arm movements to visual targets in three-dimensional space. III. Positional gradients and population coding of movement direction from various movement origins.
J. Neurosci.
8:
2938-2947, 1988[Abstract].
-
Lacquaniti, F.,
Le Taillanter, M.,
Lopiano, L.,
and Maioli, C.
The control of limb geometry in cat posture.
J. Physiol. (Lond.)
426:
177-192, 1990[Abstract].
-
Lacquaniti, F.,
and Maioli, C.
Independent control of limb position and contact forces in cat posture.
J. Neurophysiol.
72:
1476-1495, 1994a[Abstract/Free Full Text].
-
Lacquaniti, F.,
and Maioli, C.
Coordinate transformations in the control of cat posture.
J. Neurophysiol.
72:
1496-1515, 1994b[Abstract/Free Full Text].
-
Neter, J.,
Kutner, M. H.,
Nachtsheim, C. J.,
and Wasserman, W.
Applied Linear Statistical Models (4th ed.)., Chicago, IL: Richard D. Irwing, 1996.
-
Prud'homme, M. J.,
and Kalaska, J. F.
Proprioceptive activity in primate primary somatosensory cortex during active arm reaching movements.
J. Neurophysiol.
72:
2280-2301, 1994[Abstract/Free Full Text].
-
Schwartz, A. B.
Direct cortical representation of drawing.
Science
265:
540-542, 1994[ISI][Medline].
-
Schwartz, A. B.,
Kettner, R. E.,
and Georgopoulos, A. P.
Primate motor cortex and free arm movements to visual targets in three-dimensional space. I. Relations between single cell discharge and direction of movement.
J. Neurosci.
8:
2913-2927, 1988[Abstract].
-
Scott, S. H.,
and Kalaska, J. F.
Reaching movements with similar hand paths but different arm orientations. I. Activity of individual cells in motor cortex.
J. Neurophysiol.
77:
826-852, 1997[Abstract/Free Full Text].
-
Shen, L.,
and Poppele, R. E.
Kinematic analysis of cat hindlimb stepping.
J. Neurophysiol.
74:
2266-2279, 1995[Abstract/Free Full Text].
-
Wilkinson, L.
The System for Statistics., Evanston, IL: SYSTAT, 1990.