McGill University, Montreal, Quebec H3A 1B1, Canada
![]() |
ABSTRACT |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Gribble, Paul L. and
David J. Ostry.
Compensation for Interaction Torques During Single- and
Multijoint Limb Movement.
J. Neurophysiol. 82: 2310-2326, 1999.
During multijoint limb movements such as reaching,
rotational forces arise at one joint due to the motions of limb
segments about other joints. We report the results of three experiments in which we assessed the extent to which control signals to muscles are
adjusted to counteract these "interaction torques." Human subjects
performed single- and multijoint pointing movements involving shoulder
and elbow motion, and movement parameters related to the magnitude and
direction of interaction torques were manipulated systematically. We
examined electromyographic (EMG) activity of shoulder and elbow muscles
and, specifically, the relationship between EMG activity and joint
interaction torque. A first set of experiments examined single-joint
movements. During both single-joint elbow (experiment
1) and shoulder (experiment 2) movements,
phasic EMG activity was observed in muscles spanning the stationary
joint (shoulder muscles in experiment 1 and elbow
muscles in experiment 2). This muscle activity preceded
movement and varied in amplitude with the magnitude of upcoming
interaction torque (the load resulting from motion of the nonstationary
limb segment). In a third experiment, subjects performed multijoint
movements involving simultaneous motion at the shoulder and elbow.
Movement amplitude and velocity at one joint were held constant, while
the direction of movement about the other joint was varied. When the
direction of elbow motion was varied (flexion vs. extension) and
shoulder kinematics were held constant, EMG activity in shoulder
muscles varied depending on the direction of elbow motion (and hence
the sign of the interaction torque arising at the shoulder). Similarly,
EMG activity in elbow muscles varied depending on the direction of
shoulder motion for movements in which elbow kinematics were held
constant. The results from all three experiments support the idea that
central control signals to muscles are adjusted, in a predictive
manner, to compensate for interaction torquesloads arising at one
joint that depend on motion about other joints.
![]() |
INTRODUCTION |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Although much has been learned about the control
of limb movements at single joints, the way in which the nervous system
coordinates neural commands to muscles for multijoint movements (such
as reaching) is less well understood. Results from studies of
single-joint movement cannot be extrapolated easily to multijoint
situations because during the latter, the control problem is
complicated by the presence of intersegmental dynamics or
"interaction torques"rotational forces that arise at one joint
(e.g., the shoulder) because of motion of limb segments about other
joints (e.g., motion of the lower arm about the elbow). In typical
single-joint experiments in which all joints but one are fixed in place
these interaction torques, although present, do not affect motion.
However, during multijoint movement, or when more than one joint is
free to move, interaction torques arise that are dependent in a
nonlinear fashion on motion at adjacent joints (see Hollerbach
and Flash 1982
and Eqs. 3 and 4 in this
paper). In the present paper, we report studies of single- and
multijoint arm movement in which electromyographic measures are used to
assess the extent to which the nervous system adjusts control signals
to muscles to compensate for interaction torques.
Numerous studies of multijoint limb movement have been reported that
demonstrate invariance of movement kinematics, suggesting that
interaction torques are in some manner dealt with. For example, subjects produce straight hand paths for planar movements in different directions and at different speeds (Morasso 1981),
despite large changes in both the magnitude and direction of
interaction torques (Hollerbach and Flash 1982
). Similar
results have been reported for other studies of planar movement
(Haggard et al., 1995
; Soechting and Lacquaniti
1981
), and three-dimensional movements (Morasso 1983
). Although these findings show that movement kinematics
can be preserved in the face of interaction torques (Hollerbach
and Flash 1982
), the mechanisms by which this occurs cannot be
determined on the basis of kinematics alone. For example, it has been
demonstrated that forces resulting from muscle mechanics and reflexes
may, at least for some movements, counteract the effects of limb
dynamics (Gribble et al., 1998
). Indeed, a central
notion of equilibrium-point control models is the idea that muscle
properties dominate loads arising from limb dynamics and that simple
control signals that take no account of interaction torques may
underlie movement. Thus kinematic invariance alone could arise either
from explicit compensation for interaction torques in control signals
or because of the effects of muscle mechanical properties and reflexes.
Without direct measurements of muscle activity it is not possible to
distinguish between these possibilities.
Recent reports have addressed the issue of compensation for interaction
torques during multijoint arm movement. In one study, it was
demonstrated that during a step tracking task involving simultaneous
rotation at the elbow and wrist, electromyographic (EMG) activity in
wrist muscles varied with interaction torques introduced by motion of
the lower arm (Cooke and Virji-Babul 1995; also see
Virji-Babul and Cooke 1995
). Koshland,
Gerilovsky, and Hasan (1991)
report a similar dependence of
wrist muscle activity on elbow movement even under conditions in which
the wrist was immobilized. In another study, it was shown that although
normal subjects were able to accurately reproduce a pantomimed
"slicing" gesture involving shoulder and elbow rotation, patients
without proprioception made systematic movement errors consistent with a failure to offset joint interaction forces at the elbow due to motion
of the upper arm (Sainburg et al. 1993
; also see
Ghez and Sainburg 1995
). In a related study,
Sainburg, Ghilardi, Poizner, and Ghez (1995)
demonstrated that when elbow motion was held constant and the amplitude
of shoulder movement was varied (thus affecting the interaction torque
arising at the elbow), changes in the timing of elbow muscle activity
were observed that varied systematically with changes in interaction
torques. The authors conclude that this reflects adjustments in control
signals to offset the effects of limb dynamics.
The possibility that even in single-joint movements, control signals
are adjusted to offset the effects of interaction torques is raised by
Almeida, Hong, Corcos, and Gottlieb (1995). These authors report phasic EMG activity at a stationary joint (e.g., the
shoulder) that acts to stabilize the limb in the face of motion about
an adjacent joint (e.g., the elbow). The authors note that the form of
EMG activity at both the stationary and moving joint is similar and
suggest that this may reflect a simple strategy whereby the nervous
system may compensate for the effects of intersegmental dynamics.
Although the results of the studies described in the preceding text suggest that the nervous system uses compensatory adjustments in muscle activity to counteract forces arising from limb dynamics, a systematic exploration of the relation between interaction torques, movement kinematics and muscle activity patterns has not been reported. The present experiments extend previous work in a number of ways. We experimentally manipulate movement parameters (both amplitude and speed) related to the magnitude and direction of interaction torques during both single- and multijoint movements. We assess the relationship between interaction torques and EMG activity in both single- and double-joint muscles to assess the extent to which control signals compensate for interaction torques. In this way we explore how EMG activity varies in relation to interaction torques and the degree to which electromyographic changes systematically anticipate upcoming loads arising from limb dynamics.
We consider two types of movements involving shoulder and elbow motion. First, we examined single-joint movements in which subjects pointed to targets that could be achieved by rotating one joint alone (e.g., the elbow). Nevertheless, the stationary joint (e.g., the shoulder) was unrestrained and thus was affected by interaction torques arising due to motion of the other joint. Movement speed was manipulated experimentally, and hence the magnitude of the interaction torque arising at the stationary joint likewise varied (see Eqs. 3 and 4). Two experiments of this type were conducted. Experiment 1 involved single-joint elbow flexion movements, and in experiment 2, each subject performed single-joint shoulder flexion movements from the start position. We examined EMG activity in muscles spanning the stationary joint and, in particular, the relationship between the magnitude of EMG activity in muscles at that joint and the magnitude of the interaction torque arising due to motion about the nonstationary joint. The timing of EMG activity relative to movement onset also was examined.
In a third experiment, subjects performed movements to targets that involved simultaneous rotation at both the shoulder and elbow. The direction of movement at one joint was varied systematically (flexion or extension), whereas the kinematics of the other joint were held constant. The effect of this manipulation was to vary the sign of the interaction torque arising at the joint at which kinematics were constant. The relationship between the magnitude of the interaction torque and EMG activity was examined.
In both kinds of experiments, anticipatory changes in EMG activity were observed that varied in proportion to interaction torques arising during movement. These results suggest that control signals to muscles are adjusted in a predictive manner to compensate for forces arising from multijoint dynamics.
![]() |
METHODS |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Subjects
Ten subjects (7 male, 3 female) between the ages of 25 and 51 participated in experiment 1. Nine of these subjects also were tested in experiments 2 and 3. The experiments were conducted on separate days. Subjects reported no history of neurological or musculo-skeletal disorders. The experimental procedures used in these studies have been approved by the Ethics Committee of the Department of Psychology, McGill University.
Apparatus
Figure 1A illustrates
the experimental setup. Subjects were seated in front of a table with a
glass surface, with their right arm abducted at the shoulder and
supported by two custom-made air sledsone located under the upper arm
and a second under the wrist, both secured to the limb using Velcro
straps. The sleds were attached to a 50-psi compressed air source,
which supported the arm against gravity and provided essentially
frictionless motion of the arm in a horizontal plane containing the
shoulder. The wrist was stabilized using an elastic brace. Subjects
were seated with the trunk in contact with the rounded cut-out section of the tabletop (see Fig. 1). Markers were placed bilaterally on the
acromion, and trunk position was monitored continuously throughout the
experiment using an overhead video camera to ensure that subjects'
position remained constant relative to the table.
|
Movement tasks
Subjects performed point-to-point movements to targets located on the glass surface. Movement speed was controlled by instructing subjects to pace each movement to auditory tones presented over a loudspeaker. Subjects were instructed to move quickly and accurately, without making corrective movements, from a single start position to a specified target. In all three experiments, both the upper and lower arm were free to move, and subjects had full vision of their limbs. Shoulder angles were defined relative to the frontal plane, such that increasing values correspond to greater amounts of shoulder extension (180° corresponds to an upper arm position parallel to the frontal plane). Elbow joint angles were defined relative to the upper arm such that 180° corresponds to full extension of the lower arm.
In experiment 1 (see Fig. 1B), three targets were used. The target positions were determined separately for each subject, and involved 20, 40, and 60° of elbow flexion from the start position, and no shoulder movement. The initial position of the limb was the same for all movements (shoulder angle was 130° and elbow angle was 120°). Subjects were told that the movements could be achieved by only moving their forearm, although nothing prevented subjects from moving their upper arm. For each target, three movement speeds were tested (see RESULTS). For each of the nine experimental conditions (3 amplitudes × 3 speeds), 20 movements were recorded. Rest periods were included to reduce subject fatigue. In all three experiments the order of the experimental conditions was randomized across subjects.
In experiment 2 (see Fig. 1C), each subject made movements from the same initial position (170° at the shoulder and 100° at the elbow) to three targets. The targets involved 20, 40, and 60° of shoulder flexion from the start position, and no elbow rotation (no movement of the lower arm relative to the upper arm). Subjects were told that they could achieve the targets using shoulder rotation only, but as in experiment 1, their forearm nevertheless was free to move. Three movement speeds were tested for each target (see RESULTS). Twenty movements were recorded for each of the nine experimental conditions.
In experiment 3 (see Fig. 1D), subjects performed multijoint movements involving simultaneous flexion or extension at both the shoulder and elbow. Four targets were placed on the glass surface representing 20° shoulder flexion with 30° elbow flexion, 20° shoulder flexion with 30° elbow extension, 20° shoulder extension with 30° elbow flexion, and 20° shoulder extension with 30° elbow extension. The initial limb position was the same for all targets (130° at the shoulder and 110° at the elbow). Two movement speeds were tested for each target (see RESULTS). In each of the eight experimental conditions (4 targets × 2 speeds), 20 movements were recorded.
Signal recording
Time-varying position of the limb was recorded using Optotrak (Northern Digital), an optoelectronic position sensing device that tracks the three-dimensional positions of infra-red emitting diodes (IREDs). Six IREDs were attached to the torso, upper arm, and lower arm and were used to compute shoulder and elbow joint angles (see Fig. 1A). Movement signals were sampled at 200 Hz and digitally low-pass filtered at 8 Hz off-line using a second-order Butterworth filter implemented in Matlab (Mathworks).
EMG activity of seven limb muscles associated with shoulder and elbow movement was recorded using bipolar surface electrodes (Neuromuscular Research Center). Each electrode consists of two 1 × 10 mm parallel silver bars placed 10 mm apart. Electrodes are housed in a compact case containing a 10× preamplifier. Recordings were made from posterior deltoid (a shoulder extensor), clavicular head of pectoralis (shoulder flexor), biceps brachii long head (2-joint flexor acting primarily at the elbow), biceps brachii short head (2-joint flexor acting at the shoulder and elbow), triceps brachii lateral head (elbow extensor), triceps brachii long head (2-joint extensor acting at the shoulder and elbow), and brachioradialis (elbow flexor). In a pilot study, activity of the sternocostal head of pectoralis also was recorded for two subjects. The patterns of results obtained were the same as those for the clavicular head. EMG signals were analogue low-pass filtered at 600 Hz and digitally sampled at 1,200 Hz. The resulting signals were digitally band-pass filtered between 30 and 300 Hz and full-wave rectified. For purposes of visualization and for scoring the onset and end of phasic EMG bursts (see following text), the rectified signals were digitally low-pass filtered at 50 Hz.
For each muscle, electrode placement was verified by having subjects
perform test maneuvers involving both free movement and isometric force
adjustments. For posterior deltoid, the electrode was placed such that
phasic activity was observed during shoulder extension. The electrode
recording the clavicular head of pectoralis was placed so that activity
was observed during shoulder flexion but not during shoulder abduction.
Although both the long and short heads of biceps cross the
gleno-humeral joint, the long head acts primarily as an elbow flexor
(Yamaguchi et al. 1997). Thus the electrode for
recording the long head of biceps was located in a position where
activity was seen during elbow flexion, but no activity was observed
during shoulder flexion. The electrode for recording the short head of
biceps was positioned so that activity was observed for both elbow and
shoulder flexion. Similarly, the electrode for recording the lateral
head of triceps was in a position where activity was seen during elbow
extension but not during shoulder extension, whereas for the long head
of triceps, the electrode was placed so that activity was observed
during both elbow and shoulder extension. For brachioradialis, a
single-joint elbow flexor, the electrode was placed so that activity
was seen during elbow flexion.
Data analysis
For each trial, kinematic records and EMG signals were
time-aligned to the start of movement, which was scored using the
tangential velocity of an IRED located on the hand. Movement start and
end were scored at 5% of peak tangential velocity. Shoulder and elbow joint movement amplitudes were computed as the difference between joint
angles at the start and end of movement. Average velocities of shoulder
and elbow movements were computed as the ratio of movement amplitude to
movement duration. In the single-joint experiments (experiments
1 and 2), we found that the average movement velocities observed in the three nominal speed conditions tended to overlap. To
maximize the difference between mean movement velocities, data associated with different movement speeds were combined and then resorted into three equal sized, nonoverlapping groups according to
average movement velocityslow, medium, and fast. This procedure was
carried out separately for each target condition.
Time-varying interaction torques at the shoulder and elbow were
computed based on the equations of motion for a two-link planar arm
(derived using Lagrangian techniques) (see Hollerbach and Flash
1982). The following equations give the equations of motion.
![]() |
(1) |
![]() |
![]() |
(2) |
![]() |
For purposes of the present paper, we define interaction torques as
Ts, the net torque at the shoulder
that depends on motion of the lower arm, and
Te, the net torque at the elbow that
depends on motion of the upper arm:
![]() |
(3) |
![]() |
![]() |
(4) |
For each movement trial, the onset and end of the first phasic EMG
burst in each muscle was scored using an interactive computer program.
On a trial-by-trial basis, a baseline measure of EMG activity was
computed for each muscle as the mean activity during a 100-ms window,
selected 300 ms before the start of movement. The onset of the first
EMG burst was scored as the time at which the EMG signal rose three
standard deviations above the mean baseline level and remained above
that level for 50 ms. The end of the EMG burst was scored as the time
at which muscle activity returned to the baseline level and remained
below baseline for
50 ms.
For each movement trial, the area associated with the first phasic burst of EMG activity was determined for each muscle by computing the integral of the signal between the onset and end of the burst. For each subject, the total set of values obtained for each muscle was normalized to z scores, which allows for comparisons across subjects. The normalization procedure was carried out separately for each experiment.
![]() |
RESULTS |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
We show that during single-joint elbow and shoulder movements,
phasic EMG activity is observed in muscles which act about the
stationary jointactivity that resembles the agonist-antagonist bursts
typically associated with movement. Moreover, we show that the onset of
this activity precedes movement and that the magnitude of this activity
varies with the speed of movement at the nonstationary joint (and hence
with the magnitude of the interaction torque produced by the moving
segment). This supports the idea that there is centrally specified
predictive compensation for interaction torques (torques arising at the
stationary joint due to motion about an adjacent joint). Data from
experiment 3 also will be presented that support this idea
in the context of multijoint movements.
It has been reported previously in the context of perturbation studies
(Gomi and Osu 1996) and muscle cocontraction
measurements (Gribble and Ostry 1998
) that the activity
of double-joint arm muscles (biceps short head and triceps long head)
primarily is related to elbow motion. Accordingly, for the purposes of
the analyses in the present paper, we have grouped the double-joint muscles together with the single-joint elbow muscles (biceps long head,
brachioradialis and triceps lateral head). Data from experiment 3 also support the idea that double-joint muscle activity is
primarily related to motion of the elbow, at least for the movements
tested here (see Experiment 3
multijoint movements).
Experiments 1 and 2: single-joint movement
Figure 2A shows, for a
single subject, mean EMG activity as a function of time during a 40°
single-joint elbow flexion movement (experiment 1). Means
were computed over 20 individual trials. Figure 2B shows EMG
activity during a 40° single-joint shoulder flexion movement
(experiment 2). In both cases, typical phasic patterns of
agonist and antagonist EMG activity were observed for muscles acting
about the moving joint. In addition, phasic activity was seen in
muscles which act about the stationary joint. For example, in Fig.
2A, phasic activity was observed in pectoralis and
deltoidsingle-joint shoulder muscles
that resembles the typical pattern of agonist and antagonist EMG bursts associated with shoulder movement, even though in this case the upper arm was stationary. Similarly, in Fig. 2B, phasic activity was seen in biceps
long head, brachioradialis, and triceps lateral head (elbow muscles), even though there was minimal movement of the lower arm relative to the
upper arm. All subjects in both experiments 1 and
2 showed similar patterns.
|
In both single-joint elbow movements and single-joint shoulder movements, the onset of the phasic activity in flexor (agonist) muscles associated with the stationary joint preceded motion of the limb. In Fig. 3, we show histograms that depict the distribution of onset times of the first EMG burst in each muscle, relative to movement onset (pooled over all subjects and all movement trials). Movement onset is denoted by the vertical line at t = 0. Negative values indicate that the onset of EMG preceded movement, and positive values indicate the EMG onset occurred after movement start. The distributions of onset times for flexor muscles (which occurred before movement) are shown in the left-hand column, and the onset times for the extensor muscles are shown in the right.
|
Statistical tests (t-tests) were carried out to assess
differences in EMG onset. Data from all subjects were taken together. For single-joint elbow flexion movements (Fig. 3A), the
onset of the first EMG burst in pectoralis occurred well before
movement onset (mean = 78 ms, P < 0.01).
Similarly, Fig. 3B shows that for single-joint shoulder
flexion movements, the onset of phasic activity in elbow flexor muscles
also occurred before movement onset (mean =
39 and
16 ms for
biceps long head and brachioradialis, respectively; P < 0.01 in both cases). These data support the idea that the phasic
activity (before movement) in muscles acting at the stationary joint
arose centrally and was not the result of afferent inputs to
motoneurons. It should be noted in addition that there was a proximal
to distal temporal organization of EMG onsets in the (agonist) muscles
examined here. For both elbow and shoulder movements, the onset of
pectoralis activity preceded activity in elbow muscles (biceps long and
short heads, and brachioradialis; P < 0.01 in all
cases) regardless of which joint was moved (also see
Experiment 3: multijoint movements).
In Fig. 4, we show patterns of mean EMG
activity for single-joint movements of different speeds. Data for a
single subject are shown. Thin lines show slow movements and thick
lines indicate faster movements. As has been reported previously,
phasic EMG activity, which varied in magnitude with movement velocity,
was seen in both agonist and antagonist muscles associated with the moving joint (Brown and Cooke 1981; Mustard and
Lee 1987
; Corcos et al. 1989
). However, the
phasic activity of muscles around the stationary joint also varied with
the velocity of the moving joint. In Fig. 4A, which shows
data for single-joint elbow flexion movements, it can be seen that the
magnitude of the phasic activity in shoulder muscles (pectoralis and
deltoid) varied with the velocity of elbow movement. As elbow velocity
increased, so did the magnitude of the EMG burst in shoulder muscles,
even though there was little movement of the upper arm. Similarly, it
can be seen in Fig. 4B for single-joint shoulder movement
that the magnitude of phasic activity in the single-joint elbow muscles
(biceps long head, brachioradialis and triceps lateral head) varied
with the speed of shoulder movement.
|
If a joint such as the shoulder is to remain stationary, torques at the
shoulder that arise due to motion of the lower arm about the elbow, as
well as torques due to elbow muscle activity, must be offset by
appropriate changes in shoulder muscle activity. This pattern can be
seen in Fig. 5. In Fig. 5A,
time-varying joint position and velocity, interaction torques, and
muscle activation patterns are shown for single-joint elbow flexion
movements at three speeds. Mean data for one subject are shown; other
subjects showed similar patterns. Thin lines indicate slow movements
and thick lines show faster movements. Fig. 5B shows
comparable patterns for single-joint shoulder flexion movements. In
A it can be seen that a torque was produced at the shoulder
(right) due to elbow motion that was first in the extension
direction (positive values), then in the flexion direction (negative
values). The magnitude of this torque varied with the velocity of elbow
movement (see Eqs. 3 and 4). Phasic activity was
observed in single-joint shoulder musclesfirst in pectoralis, to
offset the extension interaction torque, and then in deltoid, to oppose
the flexion interaction torque. Moreover, as elbow velocity increased,
the magnitude of this activity increased to offset the higher
interaction torque arising at the shoulder.
|
Similarly, in single-joint shoulder movements (Fig. 5B), a torque was produced at the elbow (left) due to shoulder motion. As the velocity of shoulder movement increased, the magnitude of the interaction torque at the elbow increased. EMG activity in single-joint elbow muscles (biceps long head and triceps lateral head) likewise increased in proportion to the interaction torque. At the beginning of shoulder movement, phasic activity was seen in biceps long head that preceded and served to offset the effect of the interaction torque at the elbow in the extension direction. This was followed by activity in triceps lateral head that opposed the interaction torque in the flexion direction.
Although anticipatory muscle activity at the stationary joint varied systematically with the magnitude of upcoming interaction torque, it also can be seen in both Fig. 5, A and B that small-amplitude changes nevertheless occurred in the position of the stationary joint (the shoulder in A and the elbow in B) over the course of movement. This might indicate a lack of complete compensation for interaction torques by muscles acting at the stationary joint.
The relationship between muscle activity and movement speed is shown in Fig. 6. A shows, for experiment 1 (single-joint elbow movements), normalized area of the first EMG burst in each muscle as a function of elbow movement velocity. In each panel, three movement amplitudes are shown, from left to right, 20, 40, and 60°. Data were normalized and for purposes of visualization were averaged across subjects. The bottom right panel shows elbow amplitude as a function of movement velocity to indicate the kinematic patterns associated with each experimental condition. For the 20° movements, average velocity ranged from 70 to 130°/s. For 40° and 60° movements, average velocity ranged from 130 to 200°/s and 160 to 270°/s, respectively. One-way repeated measures ANOVA was used to test whether elbow movement amplitude remained constant across the three elbow velocity conditions. Statistically significant differences were observed (P < 0.01), although they were very small compared with the overall movement amplitudes (0.9-1.8°). Thus the changes observed in EMG activity may be attributable to changes in movement velocity.
|
For each of the three different movement amplitudes tested, one-way
repeated measures ANOVA was used to assess the effect of movement speed
on normalized EMG activity. For elbow and double-joint muscles (biceps
long and short heads, brachioradialis, and triceps long and lateral
heads), EMG activity increased as a function of elbow velocity
(P < 0.01 in all cases except for the 20° target, for which only biceps long head and triceps long head showed
significant differences). This dependence of agonist and antagonist EMG
activity on movement speed is typical of point-to-point limb movements (Brown and Cooke 1981; Corcos et al.
1989
; Mustard and Lee 1987
). However, it also
can be seen that single-joint shoulder EMG activity (pectoralis and
deltoid) varied depending on the velocity of elbow movement
(P < 0.01 in all cases except the 20° target, which
showed no reliable differences). This systematic dependence of shoulder EMG activity on elbow movement was present even though there was minimal movement at the shoulder (average shoulder movement amplitude ranged from 0.5 to 3.1° across subjects).
Although shoulder movements were small, the possibility exists that the observed changes in shoulder muscle activity were related to differences in shoulder kinematics rather than to changes in elbow movement speed. To test for this possibility, we examined, for each movement target separately, the dependence of shoulder kinematics (movement amplitude and average velocity) on elbow speed. Using repeated measures ANOVAs, we found that there were no systematic changes in either shoulder amplitude or average velocity as elbow speed varied (P > 0.01 for all tests except the 20° target). For the 20° target, statistically significant differences were observed in shoulder position (<1°) and average velocity (<3°/s); however, these changes were small relative to overall movement amplitude and velocity.
Figure 6B shows the dependence of EMG activity on the
velocity of shoulder movement, for single-joint shoulder flexions
(experiment 2). For the purposes of visualization, data
shown are averaged over subjects. Figure 6B (bottom
right) indicates the kinematic patterns associated with the
single-joint shoulder movements tested in experiment 2. For
20° shoulder movements, average velocity ranged from 50 to 100°/s.
For 40 and 60° movements, average velocity ranged from 60 to 130°/s
and 90 to 180°/s, respectively. The dependence of EMG activity on
shoulder movement velocity was assessed using one-way repeated measures
ANOVAs. Consistent with previous reports, single-joint shoulder muscle
activity (pectoralis and deltoid) varied with shoulder movement
velocity (P < 0.01). In addition, single-joint elbow
and double-joint muscle activity (biceps long and short heads,
brachioradialis, and triceps lateral and long heads) varied with the
velocity of shoulder movement (P < 0.01)even though
minimal movement occurred at the elbow (average elbow movement amplitude for different subjects ranged from 1.8 to 5.9°). One-way repeated measures ANOVAs were used to verify, for each target separately, that shoulder movement amplitude did not vary with shoulder
velocity [P > 0.01 for all 3 targets except the 40°
target, for which small (<1.9°) but significant differences were
observed, P < 0.01]. Thus the changes observed in EMG
activity may be attributable to changes in movement velocity. In
addition we assessed the possibility that differences in elbow EMG
activity might be due to undesired changes in elbow movement amplitude
or velocity for the different shoulder movement speeds that were
tested. Using one-way repeated measures ANOVAs for each target
condition separately, we found that neither elbow movement amplitude
nor average velocity varied with shoulder velocity (P > 0.01 for all 3 targets).
The relationship between movement velocity and interaction torque was assessed using one-way repeated measures ANOVAs for each movement target separately. In agreement with Eqs. 3 and 4, it was found that peak interaction torque at the stationary joint increased with higher movement velocities. In single-joint elbow movements, the average increase, from slow to fast movements, in peak shoulder interaction torque (torque at the shoulder due to elbow motion) was 10-20 Nm (P < 0.01 for all 3 movement amplitudes). For single-joint shoulder movements, slightly smaller increases in elbow interaction torque were observed with increases in shoulder movement velocity (3-12 Nm, P < 0.01 for all 3 amplitudes).
The dependence of muscle activity on interaction torque was assessed directly by examining the relationship between the maximum value of interaction torque and the integrated area under the first EMG burst for each muscle. These values are plotted in Fig. 7; mean values over all subjects and all experimental conditions are shown. In Fig. 7A, the relationship between peak interaction torque at the shoulder (torque arising from motion of the lower arm about the elbow) and normalized EMG activity in single-joint shoulder muscles is shown for the single-joint elbow movements in experiment 1. For both pectoralis and deltoid, there was a significant correlation between EMG activity and peak interaction torque at the shoulder (r = 0.65 for pectoralis, r = 0.54 for deltoid; P < 0.01 in both cases). Similarly, Fig. 7B shows the relationship between normalized EMG activity in single-joint elbow muscles and double-joint muscles, and the peak interaction torque at the elbow (torque arising due to motion of the upper arm about the shoulder). In all cases, a significant correlation was observed (r = 0.64 for biceps long head, r = 0.68 for biceps short head, r = 0.66 for brachioradialis, r = 0.72 for triceps lateral head, and r = 0.73 for triceps long head; P < 0.01 in all cases).
|
In summary, during single-joint movements at the elbow and shoulder, phasic activity was observed in single-joint muscles that act at the stationary joint. The finding that this phasic activity appeared before movement onset and the observed dependence of the amplitude of this activity on the velocity of movement at the nonstationary joint both support the idea that there are anticipatory adjustments to control signals to counteract the effects of interaction torques.
Experiment 3: multijoint movements
In this experiment, subjects performed multijoint movements involving simultaneous motion at the elbow and shoulder. Targets were placed so as to vary the relative direction of shoulder and elbow movement, thus affecting the sign of interaction torques. The data are grouped in two different ways for analysis. First, movements are considered in which the shoulder kinematics were held constant (same direction, amplitude and velocity) but the direction of elbow movement was varied (flexion or extension). The effect of this was to vary the direction of the interaction torque at the shoulder (the torque at the shoulder arising due to elbow motion). We also consider movements in which elbow kinematics were held constant, and the direction of shoulder rotation was varied. In both cases we assessed the dependence of EMG activity in muscles acting about the joint at which kinematics were held constant, on the direction of movement at the other joint. For example, we assessed the dependence of shoulder muscle EMG on the direction of elbow rotation, for movements in which the shoulder movement direction, amplitude, and velocity were the same but the elbow movement involved either a flexion or an extension.
Figure 8 summarizes the findings of
experiment 3. We show muscle activity patterns for those
muscles that act about the joint at which kinematics were held
constant. In Fig. 8A, we show the dependence of EMG activity
in single-joint shoulder muscles on the direction of elbow movement for
two movements in which the shoulder kinematics were held constant. Mean
data for one subject are shown. In one movement, the shoulder and elbow
rotated in the same direction (both flexion, thin lines), and in the
other movement, they rotated in opposite directions (shoulder flexion, elbow extensionshown using thick lines). Note that the shoulder joint
kinematics are essentially the same for both movements
only the
direction of elbow rotation was different. Nevertheless, it can be seen
that the magnitude of EMG activity in pectoralis and deltoid
(single-joint shoulder muscles) varied with the direction of elbow
rotation. Muscle activity was greater when the joints rotated in the
same direction compared with when the shoulder and elbow rotated in
opposite directions.
|
Similarly, Fig. 8B shows the dependence of EMG activity in single-joint elbow and double-joint muscles on the direction of shoulder movement when elbow kinematics were held constant. One movement involved flexion at both joints, and the other required shoulder extension and elbow flexion. Note again that in this case the kinematics for the elbow were essentially the same, and only the direction of shoulder rotation was different. EMG activity in elbow and double-joint muscles varied depending on the direction of shoulder movement. When the joints rotated in the same direction (thin lines), muscle activity was higher than when they rotated in opposite directions (thick lines). The same pattern was observed for all subjects.
As noted earlier, there have been a number of recent reports suggesting that double-joint muscle activity is related primarily to motion about the elbow joint. Data from the present study further support this. It can be seen in Fig. 8B that when the direction of shoulder movement was reversed (but the elbow kinematics were held constant), the EMG activity patterns for the double-joint muscles (biceps short head and triceps long head) in both cases displayed patterns similar to those of the single-joint elbow muscles. If the double-joint muscle activity was related primarily to shoulder movement, one would have expected to see a reversal in the order of onset of biceps short head and triceps long head activity, when the shoulder movement direction was reversed. That is, when the shoulder movement involved an extension, the triceps long head would have acted as an agonist and its activity would have preceded that of biceps short head, which would have acted as an antagonist. In contrast, it can be seen in Fig. 8B that for both shoulder flexion and extension movements, biceps short head activity preceded activity in triceps long head. These data provide support for the idea that (at least for the movements tested here), double-joint muscle activity is primarily related to elbow motion.
As in experiments 1 and 2, a proximal to distal
temporal organization was observed for the onset of EMG bursts in
shoulder and elbow musclesthe onset of shoulder agonist muscles
preceded the onset of elbow agonist activity. Statistical tests
(t-tests) were carried out on data pooled across subjects to
assess differences in mean onset times. For movements involving
shoulder and elbow flexion, mean onset of pectoralis activity (
75 ms)
preceded mean onset of biceps long (
52 ms) and short (
58 ms) head,
as well as brachioradialis (
36 ms) (P < 0.01 in all
cases). Likewise, for shoulder flexion/elbow extension movements, mean
onset of pectoralis activity (
72 ms) preceded the onset of triceps
lateral (
31 ms) and long (
29 ms) heads (P < 0.01 in both cases). For shoulder extension/elbow flexion movements, mean
onset of deltoid activity (
62 ms) preceded activity of biceps long
(
28 ms) and short (
23 ms) head, as well as brachioradialis (
21
ms) (P < 0.01 in all cases). Finally, for movements
involving shoulder and elbow extension, mean onset of deltoid activity
(
57 ms) preceded the onset of activity in triceps lateral and long
heads (
28 and
25 ms, respectively; P < 0.01 in
both cases).
The data from experiment 3 are described further in Fig.
9. Time-varying position, velocity, and
interaction torque at the shoulder and elbow are shown along with EMG
activity in single-joint elbow and shoulder muscles. In Fig.
9A, two movements are shownin both movements, the shoulder
kinematics were held constant (flexion) but the elbow rotated either
into flexion in one movement or extension in the other. It can be seen
that the interaction torque arising at the shoulder due to elbow
rotation (right) varied depending on the direction of elbow
movement. When both joints rotated into flexion (shown using thin
lines), a large interaction torque occurred at the shoulder that
initially opposed shoulder flexion (positive values of torque).
Conversely, when the joints rotated in opposite directions (thick
lines), the interaction torque at the shoulder was opposite in sign
(negative torque values)
in this case the interaction torque initially
assisted the shoulder flexion movement. When muscle activation patterns
are examined (bottom), it can be seen that the magnitude of
single-joint shoulder (pectoralis and deltoid) EMG activity varied
depending on the sign of the interaction torque at the shoulder. When
the interaction torque initially opposed shoulder movement, muscle
activity was greater than when the interaction torque assisted shoulder
flexion. In the latter case, the interaction torque assisting shoulder
flexion was presumably not of sufficient magnitude to produce the
shoulder movement on its own, and so in this case muscle activity
(e.g., pectoralis) still was required to generate sufficient net
flexion torque.
|
Figure 9B shows the same signals plotted for two movements
in which the elbow kinematics were held constant, but the shoulder movement involved a flexion in one case and an extension in the other.
In this case, the interaction torque arising at the elbow (left) varied depending on the direction of shoulder
motionwhen the joints rotated in the same direction, the elbow
interaction torque initially opposed the elbow movement (positive
values of torque), and elbow EMG activity increased. When the joints
rotated in the opposite direction, the interaction torque at the elbow assisted the elbow flexion (negative torque values), and muscle activity in single-joint elbow muscles (biceps long head and triceps lateral head) was less. The same patterns were observed for the double-joint muscles.
The relationship between muscle activity and the relative direction of
shoulder and elbow motion is shown in Figs.
10 and
11. All subjects showed similar
patterns, thus the data shown are averaged across subjects. Figure 10
shows normalized EMG activity in single-joint shoulder muscles as a
function of the direction of elbow motion for movements in which
shoulder kinematics were held constant (20° flexion or extension).
Figure 10, bottom, indicates the kinematic parameters of the
movements. Shoulder amplitude is plotted against elbow amplitude for
the four targets (positive values indicate extension, negative values
denote flexion). Data for two movement speeds are shownslower
movements (
, average speed 44°/s for shoulder and 78°/s for
elbow), and faster movements (- - -, average speed 61°/s for
shoulder and 113°/s for elbow). It can be seen that the magnitude of
EMG activity in shoulder agonist muscles (pectoralis for shoulder
flexion, left half of top left
panel, and deltoid for shoulder extension, right half of right-hand panel), varied depending on the direction of
elbow movement. These differences were tested using separate one-way repeated measures ANOVAs for each muscle and each movement speed condition (P < 0.01 for both muscles, at both speeds).
When the joints rotated in the same direction, muscle activity was
greater than when they rotated in opposite directions. Although smaller differences were observed, a similar pattern was seen in the antagonist muscles (deltoid for shoulder flexion, left half of
right-hand panel, and pectoralis for shoulder extension,
right half of left-hand panel)
EMG activity was
higher when the shoulder and elbow rotated in the same direction
(P < 0.01 in all cases).
|
|
The possibility exists that the changes in shoulder muscle activity shown in Fig. 10 were related to differences in shoulder kinematics rather than to changes in the direction of elbow movement. We used one-way repeated measures ANOVAs to assess this possibility for each target and movement speed separately. For the movements involving shoulder flexion, there was no change in shoulder movement amplitude or average velocity associated with different elbow movement directions (flexion vs. extension) (P > 0.01 in all cases). For movements involving shoulder extension, small differences in shoulder amplitude and velocity were observed (P < 0.01 for both speeds for amplitude and average velocity). The average change in shoulder movement amplitude ranged from 3 to 5° across subjects, and the average change in shoulder velocity was in all cases <10% of peak velocity. Given that these differences are small relative to the overall movements, and in light of the finding that for shoulder flexion, changes in shoulder EMG were observed even though no reliable differences in shoulder kinematics were observed, it is unlikely that the differences in shoulder EMG for shoulder extension movements were due to the changes detected in shoulder kinematics.
In Fig. 11, the relationship between elbow and double-joint muscle
activity and the direction of shoulder movement is shown for movements
in which elbow kinematics were held constant (40° flexion or
extension). Two movements speeds are shownslow (
) and fast
(- - -). The kinematic parameters of the movement conditions are
indicated in the bottom right panel, which shows
elbow movement amplitude plotted against shoulder amplitude (negative
values indicate flexion, positive values denote extension). For agonist muscles (biceps long and short heads, and brachioradialis for elbow
flexions, left half of left-hand panels, and
triceps long and lateral heads for extensions, right half of
right-hand panels), differences in EMG activity were
observed for movements in which the direction of shoulder movement was
reversed. When the shoulder rotated in the same direction as the elbow,
EMG activity was greater than when the joints rotated in opposite
directions. One-way repeated measures ANOVAs were used to test these
differences for each movement speed and muscle separately
(P < 0.01 in all cases). Similar, although smaller
differences were seen in antagonist muscles (biceps long and short
heads and brachioradialis for elbow extensions, right half
of left-hand panels, and triceps long and lateral heads for
elbow flexions, left half of right-hand panels)
(P < 0.01 in all cases except brachioradialis, for
which P < 0.05 for slow elbow extension movements, and
for which no difference was detected in fast elbow extension
movements). Again, EMG magnitudes were greater for movements in which
the joints rotated in the same direction.
As in the preceding text, one-way repeated measures ANOVAs were carried out to rule out the possibility that the observed differences in elbow and double-joint muscle activity might be due to differences in elbow kinematics associated with changing the direction of shoulder movement. No significant changes in elbow amplitude or velocity were observed for different shoulder movement directions (flexion vs. extension; P > 0.01 in all conditions, for both amplitude and velocity).
![]() |
DISCUSSION |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
To assess the extent to which intersegmental dynamics are represented in control signals, we systematically manipulated parameters related to the magnitude and direction of joint interaction torques that accompany pointing movements involving the shoulder and elbow. We examined EMG activity of shoulder and elbow muscles, and specifically, the relationship between EMG activity and interaction torque. During single-joint movements in which there was motion at only one joint, phasic EMG activity was observed in single-joint muscles spanning the stationary joint. This muscle activity preceded movement and varied in magnitude with upcoming interaction torque at that joint resulting from motion of the nonstationary limb segment. This pattern was observed both for single-joint elbow movements (movements in which the upper arm was stationary and the lower arm rotated about the elbow) and single-joint shoulder movements (movements in which the lower arm was stationary relative to the upper arm, which rotated about the shoulder).
A similar relationship between EMG activity and interaction
torque was observed during multijoint movements involving simultaneous motion at the shoulder and elbow. Subjects performed movements in which
movement amplitude and velocity at one joint was held constant while
the direction of movement about a second joint was varied. When the
direction of movement at the elbow was varied (flexion vs. extension)
and shoulder movement kinematics were held constant, the magnitude of
EMG activity in single-joint shoulder muscles varied depending on the
direction of elbow motion (and hence the sign of the interaction torque
arising at the shoulder). Similarly, the magnitude of EMG activity in
elbow muscles varied depending on the direction of shoulder motion for
movements in which elbow kinematics were held constant. The patterns of
variation in EMG activity for both the single- and multijoint movements reported here are consistent with the idea that central control signals
to muscles are adjusted, in a predictive manner, to compensate for
interaction torquesloads arising at one joint that depend on motion
about other joints.
Similar examples of anticipatory adjustments to control signals have
been reported for other tasks. Studies of grip force adjustments during
rapid arm movements with hand-held loads have suggested that subjects
adjust control signals to finger muscles in a predictive manner to
compensate for movement induced inertial, viscous, and elastic loads on
objects (e.g., Flanagan and Wing 1997). Similarly,
anticipatory adjustments in the activity of various trunk and leg
muscles may be observed that offset loads on the body introduced by
rapid arm movements (see de Wolf et al. 1998
; van
der Fits and Hadders-Algra 1998
for reviews).
A main finding of the experiments reported here is that during
single-joint movement, marked phasic activity was observed in muscles
acting at stationary joints. Related findings have been reported by
Almeida, Hong, Corcos, and Gottlieb (1995) (also see
Gottlieb et al. 1996
). In their study, subjects produced
single-joint elbow or shoulder flexions over three distances in a
sagittal plane. EMG patterns in flexor and extensor muscles at the
"focal" (moving) and "nonfocal" (stationary) joints were
recorded for both movements in which the nonfocal joint was physically
restrained or free to move. The authors show that for movements in
which the nonfocal joint was unconstrained, phasic EMG patterns arose in muscles acting at the nonfocal joint that were similar in form to
those seen in muscles at the focal joint and acted to oppose torques
arising from motion at the focal joint. The authors conclude that some
compensation for interaction torques occurred at the nonfocal joint.
The results of the present study extend this work by demonstrating that
phasic activity in muscles at the nonfocal joint arises in both single-
and double-joint muscles and that the onset of this activity precedes
movement. In addition, by experimentally manipulating both movement
amplitude and speed, we show that the magnitude of EMG bursts in
muscles at the nonfocal joint is related directly to the magnitude of
upcoming interaction torques.
The finding of phasic activity in muscles acting at a stationary joint that precedes movement and varies in amplitude with upcoming interaction torques calls into question the validity of the concept of "single-joint" movement as it relates to neural control. Indeed, the single-joint movements reported here may be described more aptly as special cases of multijoint movement. Just as in the case of multijoint motion, control signals for single-joint motion must be coordinated appropriately to muscles at multiple joints to stabilize adjacent limb segments in the face of interaction torques. This multijoint coordination of control signals is required in all cases in which more than one limb segment is free to move, and intersegmental dynamics play a role.
The idea that control signals must be coordinated to muscles at
multiple joints applies to other motor systems as well. For example,
because in primates there is no one-to-one correspondence between
individual fingers and forearm muscles, moving any single digit alone
requires coordinating the activity of several muscles that have
mechanical actions on many digits (Schieber 1995).
Similarly, in systems such as the human jaw in which muscles act across
multiple mechanical degrees of freedom, control signals to a large
number of muscles must be coordinated appropriately to produce motions in individual degrees of freedom (Gribble et al. 1997
;
Laboissière et al. 1996
).
It was observed in the present studies that the onset of EMG activity
in shoulder and elbow muscles followed a proximal to distal temporal
orderingfor both single- and multijoint movements, the onset of
shoulder muscle activity tended to precede the onset of elbow muscle
activity by ~20-50 ms. These differences in onset timing are
presumably not due to neural conduction delays, which would account for
<5 ms of the time difference. The timing differences observed in the
present experiments are consistent with previous reports of muscle
activation patterns during multijoint limb movement (Karst and
Hasan 1991
; Wadman et al. 1980
). In addition,
McKiernan et al. (1998)
report a similar temporal
ordering, from proximal to distal muscles, of corticomotoneuronal
activation of arm muscles. Similarly, Murphy, Wong, and Kwan
(1998)
and Scott (1998)
report a temporal
ordering of the onset of activity in single neurons projecting to
proximal and distal muscles. These consistent temporal ordering effects
may reflect an organizing principle for upper body movements and may
serve in stabilizing the limb.
Additional factors that influence motor adaptation to movement related
loads may be noted. Data from recent behavioral studies suggest that
sensory feedback plays a critical role in maintaining the effectiveness
of the mechanisms that underlie compensation for intersegmental
dynamics. Patients who lack proprioceptive input from their limbs fail
to accurately reproduce multijoint arm movements in which interaction
torques play a major role (Ghez and Sainburg 1995;
Sainburg et al. 1993
, 1995
). When patients were able to
view their limbs during movement, however, their performance was
improved markedly, although some differences remained relative to
neurologically intact control subjects.
Recent neurophysiological data suggest a possible neural basis for the
patterns of inter-joint muscle coordination reported here.
McKiernan, Marcario, Karrer, and Cheney (1998) report
experiments with awake, behaving monkeys in which spike-triggered
averaging techniques were used to study the projections of
corticomotoneuronal cells to proximal and distal limb muscles. They
found that a large majority of the motor cortex cells examined produced
postspike effects in two or more muscles, and moreover, nearly half of
the cells examined produced postspike effects in both proximal and distal muscles (similar results also were reported for cells in the red
nucleus, see Belhaj-Saif et al. 1998
; also see
Gibson et al. 1985
; van Kan et al. 1993
).
In one case, individual cells were found that produced postspike
facilitation in both single-joint shoulder (pectoralis) and elbow
(brachialis) muscles. This pattern of projection from motor cortex to
arm muscles, if at all general, would provide a mechanism by which
compensation for interaction torques may be achieved. For example, the
simultaneous activation of pectoralis and brachialis during flexion
movements would tend to offset interaction torques at the shoulder due
to flexion at the elbow. It should be emphasized, however, that the
corticomotoneuronal system only accounts for a relatively small
proportion of overall descending neural drive. Other cortical and
spinal systems presumably play a significant role in interjoint coordination.
One implication of the findings presented in this paper is that the
nervous system makes use of a representation of limb dynamics to carry
out the adjustments to control signals that offset forces arising from
intersegmental dynamics. Consistent with this finding, a number of
researchers have suggested that predictive compensation for movement
related loads is based on "internal models" of the motor apparatus
(Jordan and Rumelhart 1992; Wolpert et al.
1995
). The hypothesis is that these models are instantiated in
neural circuitry and, depending on the formulation, are used to predict the kinematic consequences of motor commands (the "forward model") and/or to determine the motor commands required to generate specific movement trajectories (the "inverse model") (e.g., Atkeson
1989
; Kawato et al. 1990
; Uno et al.
1989
).
Although the present data are consistent with the general notion of
internal models, they do not allow one to resolve a separate but
related issuewhether the nervous system uses force or position control or some combination. The present finding
the systematic matching of muscle activity to interaction torque
is clearly
compatible with models of control (such as inverse dynamics) in which
time-varying forces and torques are explicitly computed by the nervous
system. On the other hand, the sort of adjustments for forces observed in the present studies also may be cast in terms of equilibrium control
models. For example, Flash and Gurevich (1997)
present an equilibrium-style control model in which the shape of centrally specified equilibrium trajectories is modified to compensate for external loads introduced by a force field. In this scheme, adjustments to control signals modify equilibrium positions to generate
compensatory forces rather than specifying time-varying muscle forces
directly. An advantage of casting force control problems in the context of an equilibrium point model is that consistent with empiric findings,
both in statics (Mussa-Ivaldi et al. 1985
;
Shadmehr et al. 1993
) and during movement (Won
and Hogan 1995
), mechanical stability is preserved. Force
control models such as inverse dynamics do not necessarily provide
similar assurances of stability.
The present results do not permit us to differentiate between inverse
dynamics and equilibrium style models of control. In particular, models
based on the adjustment of a small number of control parameters (e.g.,
Gribble et al. 1998; Karniel and Inbar 1997
; Loeb et al. 1999
) may be able to reproduce
many of the phenomena reported both here and in the literature on
adaptive load compensation. Many ostensibly "complex" features of
kinematics and limb impedance may be predicted using rather simple
control signals in which values for a small number of parameters need
to be specified (for example, the onset time, rate and duration of an
equilibrium shift) (Feldman et al. 1990
; Flanagan
et al. 1993
; Flash 1987
; Gribble et al.
1998
). It should be noted, however, that even in these cases a
mapping is required to determine the adjustments to control signals
necessary to produce a given pattern of load compensation.
![]() |
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
---|
The authors acknowledge D. Shiller and A. Feldman and thank J. R. Flanagan for helpful comments.
This research was supported by National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders Grant DC-00594, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, Canada, and Fonds pour la Formation de Chercheurs et l'Aide à la Recherche, Québec.
![]() |
FOOTNOTES |
---|
Address for reprint requests: D. J. Ostry, Dept. of Psychology, McGill University, 1205 Dr. Penfield Ave., Montreal, QC H3A 1B1, Canada.
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.
Received 23 March 1999; accepted in final form 17 June 1999.
![]() |
REFERENCES |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|