The Neurosciences Institute, San Diego, California 92121
![]() |
ABSTRACT |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Reina, G. Anthony, Daniel W. Moran, and Andrew B. Schwartz. On the Relationship Between Joint Angular Velocity and Motor Cortical Discharge During Reaching. J. Neurophysiol. 85: 2576-2589, 2001. Single-unit activity in area M1 was recorded in awake, behaving monkeys during a three-dimensional (3D) reaching task performed in a virtual reality environment. This study compares motor cortical discharge rate to both the hand's velocity and the arm's joint angular velocities. Hand velocity is considered a parameter of extrinsic space because it is measured in the Cartesian coordinate system of the monkey's workspace. Joint angular velocity is considered a parameter of intrinsic space because it is measured relative to adjacent arm/body segments. In the initial analysis, velocity was measured as the difference in hand position or joint posture between the beginning and ending of the reach. Cortical discharge rate was taken as the mean activity between these two times. This discharge rate was compared through a regression analysis to either an extrinsic-coordinate model based on the three components of hand velocity or to an intrinsic-coordinate model based on seven joint angular velocities. The model showed that velocities about four degrees-of-freedom (elbow flexion/extension, shoulder flexion/extension, shoulder internal/external rotation, and shoulder adduction/abduction) were those best represented in the sampled population of recorded activity. Patterns of activity recorded across the cortical population at each point in time throughout the task were used in a second analysis to predict the temporal profiles of joint angular velocity and hand velocity. The population of cortical units from area M1 matched the hand velocity and three of the four major joint angular velocities. However, shoulder adduction/abduction could not be predicted even though individual cells showed good correlation to movement on this axis. This was also the only major degree-of-freedom not well correlated to hand velocity, suggesting that the other apparent relations between joint angular velocity and neuronal activity may be due to intrinsic-extrinsic correlations inherent in reaching movements.
![]() |
INTRODUCTION |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Movement coordinate transformations
The sensorimotor planning of a
reaching movement is commonly described by two successive
transformations (Flanders et al. 1992): a target in
extrinsic space (i.e., visual) is transformed by an
extrinsic-to-intrinsic coordinate frame (joint angles, muscle lengths)
followed by a kinematic-to-dynamic coordinate frame (joint torques,
muscle forces). Our previous work in two dimensions has shown that
cortical unit populations in primary motor cortex (M1) encode the
hand's velocity in extrinsic parameters (Moran and Schwartz
1999a
). In this paper, we compare the relation between cortical
activity in M1 and both the extrinsic (hand velocity) and intrinsic
(joint angular velocity) parameters of the arm during natural reaching
in three dimensions.
Neurophysiological experiments
Beginning with Jackson (1889), locationist concepts
have evolved from somatotopic cortical maps to single structure/single coordinate frame hierarchies (Kalaska and Crammond
1992
). In such a scheme the motor cortex is generally
considered as the cortical output of motor signals, operating as the
gateway to the "final common pathway" for muscles (Asanuma
and Rosen 1972
; Evarts 1968
). As such,
activity in M1 should be correlated with intrinsic and/or dynamic
coordinates, rather than more abstract reference frames, such as
extrinsic space. Following a series of experiments with single-joint,
single degree-of-freedom (DOF) movements (Evarts 1968
;
Humphrey et al. 1970
; Schmidt et al.
1975
), Murphy and colleagues (1982)
attempted to
correlate joint angular position (intrinsic coordinates) with neural
activity in a multi-jointed, reaching task. They found that
1) there was no simple relationship between the neural
activity and the electromyogram (EMG); 2) neuronal activity
related to the shoulder joint was similar to neuronal activity related
to the elbow joints even though motion about those joints could be
quite different; and 3) the discharge of the
shoulder-related neurons seemed to vary systematically with the trajectory.
More recent experiments have shown that several cortical motor areas
project to the spinal motor centers (Martino and Strick 1987), and paradigms using natural arm movements
(Georgopoulos et al. 1982
; Schwartz et al.
1988
) have concluded that motor cortical activity is related
well to the direction of the hand in space (extrinsic coordinates).
Other experiments show that motor cortical activity can even be related
to nonmotor aspects of the task (Carpenter et al. 1999
;
Georgopoulos et al. 1989
, 1992
). The
specific function of the primary motor cortex is still controversial
and has been the goal of several studies that have attempted to
categorize motor cortical activity to a specific place in the
hierarchical set of transformations from vision to muscle activation
(Evarts 1968
; Humphrey 1986
; Kakei
et al. 1999
; Kalaska and Crammond 1992
).
The question of whether motor cortical activity is representative of
intrinsic or extrinsic coordinates is one aspect of this hierarchical
scheme. While the work of Georgopoulos and colleagues (Georgopoulos et al. 1982; Schwartz et al.
1988
) showed that motor cortical activity was correlated well
to extrinsic coordinates, it was not clear whether the task
(center
out reaching) could clearly dissociate the two coordinate
frames. An attempt to make this distinction by having the animal
perform the task in spatially separated regions of the workspace
(Caminiti et al. 1990
) showed that, although there was a
global tendency across the population of recorded units for an orderly
shift in preferred directions, this was difficult to see in individual
units as shoulder azimuth varied across different regions of space.
Interestingly, the statistical shift in preferred direction did not
affect the population vector direction. Another experiment
(Scott and Kalaska 1995
, 1997
) compared responses of motor cortical cells as the arm was held in two different postures. Although it was concluded that arm configuration caused a
change in preferred direction, only about one-half of the cells had a
statistically significant change in their preferred direction between
the two postures. Less than 30% of units in this study had preferred
directions separated by more than (±45°), and these differences were
insufficient to cause a directional shift in the calculated population
vectors. A recent study by Kakei and colleagues (1999)
used a behavioral paradigm consisting of a single joint (wrist)
movement in either a pronated, supinated, or neutral starting position.
The different starting positions allowed them to separate three
reference frames: based on global hand movement, muscle line-of-action
and joint rotation. They found a population (~30%) of cortical units
in M1 that were correlated with a muscle coordinate frame (intrinsic)
and an even larger population (~50%) that were correlated with the
direction of hand movement (extrinsic). They concluded that M1 is
involved in "not just the final computation" (i.e., computation of
patterns of muscle activity) of the sensorimotor transformation, but in
multiple stages of that transformation. These studies are inconsistent
with the concept that the motor cortex is isolated on one rung of a
hierarchical ladder between intrinsic and extrinsic coordinate systems.
Joint angular velocity population vectors
Population vectors calculated over short intervals predict
the movement's kinematics (Moran and Schwartz
1999b; Schwartz 1993
; Schwartz and Moran
1999
). Although population vectors were originally based on
vectorial contributions of neurons in extrinsic two-dimensional (2D)
space, they can also be applied to any n-dimensional feature space. In this paper we define seven joint angles (i.e., DOF) to
describe the arm's configuration: three at the shoulder, one at the
elbow, one in the forearm, and two at the wrist. The position of the
hand does not uniquely define the arm's configuration; that is, the
arm could have many configurations for the same hand location. This is
commonly referred to as the "degrees of freedom" problem
(Bernstein 1967
). Although the DOF problem predicts an infinite number of possible trajectories, reaching movements are quite
stereotypical in the relation between intrinsic and extrinsic parameters (Georgopoulos et al. 1981
;
Helms-Tillery et al. 1995
; Soechting and
Lacquanti 1981
). Soechting and Flanders (1989)
, for example, found simple linear relationships for arm elevation and
yaw angles to target location when humans pointed in the dark. Moran and Schwartz (1999b)
found that, in drawing tasks
performed by monkeys, there was a very high correlation between
individual joint angular velocity and the cosine of hand direction.
This suggests that M1 cortical activity, which is highly cosine-tuned to hand velocity in reaching tasks, would also be well correlated to
joint angular velocity. In this study, we compared the relationship between hand velocity and cortical discharge to joint angular velocity
and cortical discharge.
![]() |
METHODS |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Virtual reality simulator
Two rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta, 4-6 kg) were
operantly trained to perform a 3D centerout reaching task in a
virtual reality simulator (Fig. 1). The
monkey sat in a primate chair with its head restrained. A custom-made
stereo monitor was mounted in front of and above the monkey's head
with the screen's display directed downward. A mirror, mounted below
the monitor and angled at 45° in the sagittal plane, reflected the
display. The monkey viewed the reflected display through a pair of
stereographic goggles (CrystalEyes, StereoGraphics). Different
viewpoints (parallax values adjusted for inter-ocular distance) of the
same image were presented to each eye through these goggles in an
alternating, shuttered pattern (120 fields/s) to produce an illusion of
depth.
|
An infrared marker was placed on the dorsum of the monkey's hand. The 3D position of the marker was measured in real-time by an optoelectronic tracking system (Optotrak 3010, Northern Digital). Four other infrared markers recorded positions on the wrist (2), elbow (1), and shoulder (1). A graphics mini-computer (Power Series 4D320VGX, Silicon Graphics) recorded the current position of the monkey's hand and rendered a virtual representation of it to the stereo display. Whenever the monkey moved its hand, it could see a sphere (cursor) in the virtual environment move with the same direction and speed. When in the simulator, the monkey could not see its hand or arm; only the virtual representation of hand location. The monkeys received liquid rewards for performing the task correctly. In all cases, the monkeys were treated in accordance with the Institutional Animal Care and Usage Committee and Society for Neuroscience guidelines.
Centerout task
The task began when the monkey touched the cursor sphere to another sphere (center sphere) positioned in the center of the virtual scene. After a random minimum hold time (300-500 ms), the center sphere disappeared and a target sphere appeared at one of eight positions at the corners of a virtual cube centered around the center position (Fig. 1). Each edge of the cube was 70 mm in length, which made the overall movement from the center to the target approximately 60 mm. Once the target sphere appeared, the monkey had a limited time (300-500 ms) to move its hand to the target. After reaching the target sphere and holding that position for a random period (170-500 ms), a reward was given. A new trial began after an inter-trial interval (500-1,000 ms). A reach was performed to each of the eight targets at least five times (minimum 40 total trials) in a random block design.
Cortical recording
The electrophysiological methods and surgical procedures have
been described previously in detail (Schwartz 1992).
After the monkey had been trained for several months in the
center
out task, a circular recording chamber (19 mm diam) was placed
over the contralateral motor cortex under general anesthesia of
isoflurane, ketamine, and xylazine. The recording chamber was held in
place with dental acrylic. On each recording day, the head was
immobilized mechanically. A Chubbuck microdrive was mounted on the
chamber and hydraulically sealed (Mountcastle et al.
1975
). Extracellular recordings were made using
glass-insulated, platinum iridium electrodes (1-3 M
impedance)
attached to the microdrive. The microdrive could position the electrode
anywhere within the chamber and its depth within the brain was
controlled with 1 µm accuracy. Typically, only one penetration was
made each day. Action potentials of single units were identified by the
criteria of Mountcastle et al. (1969)
and separated
using a differential amplitude discriminator. Every attempt was made to
record from all cortical layers. For each isolated unit, a center
out
task was performed by the monkey followed by a passive examination of
the arm to determine whether its activity was related to the movement
of a particular body part or joint. Recording sessions ranged from 4-6
h. The monkey was returned to its home cage after each session.
Recordings from each hemisphere were performed over a 6- to 8-wk
period. Postmortem analysis confirmed that all cortical units analyzed
in this study were located rostral to the central sulcus at about the
level of the precentral dimple.
Kinematic recording and modeling
In addition to recording the position of the hand, the positions
of four other points on the arm were recorded by the optoelectronic recording system. Infrared markers (IRED) were placed on the radial and
ulnar sides of the wrist, on the lateral malleolus of the elbow, and
just distal to the head of the humerus. The marker data were smoothed
using a 10-Hz, low-pass, fifth-order, phase-symmetric digital filter
(Woltring 1986). Movement onset and offset times were
calculated so that movement onset coincided with the hand speed rising
to 25% of maximum and movement offset coincided with the hand speed
falling to 35% of maximum. The data were divided into 100 bins. Bin
size was calculated by dividing the total movement epoch into 40 equal
intervals. Thirty additional bins were assigned just prior to (prebins)
and just after (postbins) the movement period and had the same
binwidths as the 40 movement bins.
The five IRED markers were used to calculate instantaneous attitude matrices for the humerus, ulna, radius, and hand. The scapula was defined as the inertial reference frame for the kinematic model and was assumed a fixed, global reference frame throughout the movement. The five segmental attitude matrices were used to calculate four rotation matrices corresponding to the modeled joints of the arm (shoulder, elbow, forearm, and wrist). Seven Cardanic angles (Euler permutation x, y', z") were calculated from the joint rotation matrices and are as follows: shoulder adduction/abduction, shoulder internal/external rotation, shoulder flexion/extension, elbow flexion/extension, radial pronation/supination, wrist flexion/extension, and wrist abduction/adduction.
A forward kinematic arm model was constructed to predict hand position
from measured joint angles. Accurate postmortem measurements (segment
lengths, joint center locations, etc.) were taken from the dissected
arm bones of each subject. These values were averaged across subjects
for use in a general monkey arm model. The accuracy of the model was
judged by applying a set of averaged joint angle trajectories (across
all subjects) to the model and comparing the resulting predicted hand
trajectories to the measured hand trajectories (averaged across all
subjects). A set of equations for the Jacobian matrix, which relates
the partial derivatives of hand coordinates to joint coordinates, were
similarly derived from the model. The Jacobian matrix is a function of
joint posture; therefore the subjects' average posture during the
central hold position was used to define a static Jacobian matrix used
in all subsequent analyses. Since there are seven joint angles and only three hand coordinates, the Jacobian is not square (i.e., 3 × 7).
To solve for the inverse kinematic model, a right pseudoinverse of the
Jacobian was used as follows
![]() |
(1) |
Spike rate processing
Only trials that contained a complete set of neural and
kinematic data were analyzed. The data consisted of at least 40 trials per cortical unit (5 repetitions each to 8 targets), but in some cases
consisted of as many as 160 trials per unit (20 repetitions each to 8 targets). The time epoch analyzed began when the target sphere first
appeared and ended when the monkey had moved the cursor sphere to the
target sphere and held it within the target sphere for a random period
of time (170-500 ms). A partial binning technique was used to
determine the discharge rate during the entire time epoch
(Richmond et al. 1987; Schwartz 1992
).
The square root transformation was performed on the discharge rate to apply standard statistical techniques to the data. Although data transformations are a conservative, statistical necessity to performing parametric tests on data from nonnormal distributions, such as neural discharge rates, we performed the analysis on both the raw and the transformed data to show that the interpretation of the analysis is unaltered by the square root transformation.
Multiple linear regression
HAND VELOCITY TUNING.
A multiple linear regression between cortical activity and 3D hand
velocity was performed for each cortical unit. The form of the
regression equation is
![]() |
(2) |
JOINT ANGULAR VELOCITY TUNING.
The average joint angular velocities of the arm were also used to
predict the discharge rate of each cortical unit. Average joint angular
velocity was defined as the difference between a joint angle at the
beginning and end of the trajectory divided by the movement time. Using
a multiple linear regression, cortical activity and joint angular
velocity were related by the equation
![]() |
(3) |
REGRESSION OPTIMIZATION.
The joint angular velocity tuning described above included seven joint
angles as independent factors in the regression model. To determine
whether all seven joint angular velocities were needed in the model,
the relative contribution that each joint angle added to the prediction
of the discharge rate was compared. First, the coefficients for each
regression were standardized (standard, partial regression
coefficients) (Sokal and Rohlf 1997). This allowed
comparisons of the relative strengths of the effects of several
independent variables on the same dependent variable. The joint angular
velocities with larger standard, partial regression coefficients had
greater contributions to the fit of the regression model (Ashe
and Georgopoulos 1994
). Second, the number of factors needed in
the regression model was optimized for each of the cortical units. Each
average joint angular velocity was considered an independent factor in
the model. The computer algorithm called RBEST in the IMSL software
package (Visual Numerics, Houston, TX) was used to determine which
combination of factors produced the best-fitted regression equation for
each task-related unit. The algorithm is based on an efficient
technique of considering all possible regression permutations
(Furnival and Wilson 1974
). A measure of the usefulness
of a regression model is the coefficient of determination
(r2), which describes how much of the
total variation in the discharge rate can be explained by the
regression model. The RBEST algorithm used in this study calculated the
adjusted-r2, which is a normalization
of the r2 that allows a comparison of
regression models with different numbers of regressors. The algorithm
was used to determine the number and combination of regressors that
produced the largest adjusted-r2. The
regression with the largest
adjusted-r2 was termed the "best"
regression for that cortical unit.
Population analysis
Two sets of population vectors were calculated as a time series throughout the task: one based on hand velocity tuning and the other on the joint angular velocity tuning. Only units with significant regression equations (P < 0.01) recorded from the right hemisphere during reaching with the left arm were used to create population vectors. Population vectors based on the joint angular velocity tuning were calculated using the seven-DOF model.
The population vector is a useful tool for evaluating the collective,
predictive power of the cortical units over time. The regression
equations described previously were calculated over a single epoch
spanning the entire reaction and movement time, making it impossible to
use this analysis by itself to describe the temporal variation between
movement parameters (i.e., hand velocity or joint angular velocity) and
discharge rate. However, the regression result (preferred direction)
can be used to calculate population vectors at different times in the
task. A time series of population vectors based on instantaneous
discharge rate in 9-ms bins was used to compare population activity to
movement parameters as they varied throughout the reach (Eq. 4).
![]() |
(4) |
The results of Eq. 4 were integrated in time to yield a population trajectory. In the case of hand velocity tuning information, the population trajectory was directly compared with the actual hand path during the movement. When integrating the joint angle population vectors, the initial posture of the arm (i.e., joint angles during initial position at the center target) was used as the integration constant. The resulting joint angle population trajectories were then applied to a forward kinematic model of the arm to yield a predictive hand trajectory. Because the population vectors were created using the discharge rates of cortical units that precede the actual movement of the arm, a time lag was incorporated in the discharge rate of the unit. This lag was iteratively increased from zero until the root-mean-squared (RMS) error between the population trajectories and the actual hand trajectory was minimized.
![]() |
RESULTS |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
A total of 298 cortical units from 3 hemispheres of 2 monkeys were
individually recorded during the centerout task (n = 18,272 reaches; average of 7.7 reaches per target per cortical unit). These units were all located in the proximal-arm area of the primary motor cortex (Fig. 2). The frequency of
discharge in 227 of the 298 units (76.1%) varied with the target
direction (ANOVA, P < 0.05). Only these 227 "task-related" units were furthered analyzed (n = 13,976 reaches).
|
Kinematics
The mean speed profiles (n = 13,976) for each coordinate of the hand velocity and joint angular velocity for all movements are shown in Fig. 3. Average reaction and movement times were 281.0 ± 71.8 (SD) ms and 374.6 ± 95.8 ms, respectively. The hand speeds (Fig. 3A) followed a bell-shaped curve in all three dimensions, and their relative timings suggest that the reaching movement was made initially in the frontal plane because the superior/inferior and the right/left speeds peaked around 450 ms while the anterior/posterior speed crested approximately 40 ms later. Shoulder internal/external rotation and adduction/abduction speeds peaked just prior to the frontal plane hand speeds while shoulder and elbow flexion were delayed and corresponded with anterior/posterior hand speeds.
|
Correlations between regression factors
The mean and standard deviation for the Pearson correlation
coefficients between the anterior, superior, and right velocities and
between all joint angular velocities are shown in Tables
1 and 2. As
expected, there were very low correlations and standard deviations
between the anterior, superior, and right velocities. The standard
deviations for the correlation between joint angular velocities were
much larger and indicated that these correlations varied widely from
trial to trial. Shoulder flexion velocity and elbow flexion velocity
had a large correlation coefficient (r = 0.672). The
same was true for shoulder adduction and internal rotation
(r =
0.643). Large correlations suggest co-linearity among the joint angular velocities, which could distort the regression model. A tolerance calculation, which is the reciprocal of the variance-inflation factor (VIF), was performed. A tolerance value of
<0.25 typically indicates that the correlation between regression factors is significant and will greatly affect the results of the
regression model. The tolerance calculated over all trials was >0.3
(VIF < 3.3). Although the correlations coefficients were large,
each joint angular velocity could be considered an independent regressor in the model.
|
|
Although the individual components within a reference frame could be considered independent for the regression model, the intrinsic and extrinsic reference frames were well-correlated to each other. This high correlation is demonstrated in Table 3. For each monkey, the three hand velocity components (anterior/posterior, superior/inferior, right/left) were used as independent regression factors to predict the joint angular velocity at any movement time (i.e., at each of the 40 movement bins) within the eight-target workspace (monkey F, right arm = 126,080 observations, left arm = 176,640 observations; monkey G, left arm = 256,320 observations). As seen in Table 3, the three hand velocity components were able to predict all of the joint angular velocities well (all regressions significant, P < 0.00001). Notably, shoulder internal/external rotation, shoulder flexion/extension, and elbow flexion/extension could be predicted almost exactly from the hand velocity components (r2 > 0.9).
|
Kinematic model of the arm
The seven measured joint angles were applied to a
forward-kinematic skeletal model of the arm to yield a prediction of
hand trajectory. Figure 4 shows a typical
comparison of an actual hand path () and the hand path predicted by
applying the measured joint angles to the skeletal arm model (
). The
mean RMS error is 4.5 mm for the 60-mm task. The skeletal model was
able to predict the hand trajectory from the measured joint angles with
approximately a 7% error.
|
The Jacobian matrix assumes that joint angle and endpoint velocities are well related in a given region of the workspace. Predicting joint angular velocities from measured hand velocities using the pseudoinverse of the Jacobian yielded similar results to the correlations between regression factors described above. In Fig. 5, the actual and Jacobian-predicted angular velocities for shoulder flexion/extension and shoulder adduction/abduction are plotted for reaches to two targets (targets 3 and 6). Throughout the entire workspace, shoulder flexion, shoulder internal rotation, and elbow flexion velocity were well predicted by the static Jacobian. However, this was not so for shoulder adduction velocity and the distal joint angular velocities. Both the Jacobian and correlation analyses show that hand velocity is correlated to shoulder flexion, shoulder internal rotation, and elbow flexion, with a lack of correlation between hand velocity and the other four joint angular velocities.
|
Multiple regression analysis
Figure 6A shows a
histogram of significant adjusted-r2
values for regressions to hand velocity and joint angular velocity
(JAV). A total of 204 (89.9%) of the 227 units had significant
regressions to the hand velocity, while 192 units (84.6%) had
significant regressions to the joint angular velocities
(P < 0.01). Significant regressions to both hand and
joint angular velocities were found in 186 units (81.9%). The
mean adjusted-r2 for the JAV model
(µ = 0.363; = 0.218) was smaller than for the hand
velocity model (µ = 0.511;
= 0.203). Figure
6B shows the cumulative frequency distribution of the
P values for all regressions. The two plots overlap
indicating that both regressions provide equally significant
predictions of the cortical discharge rate (Kolmogorov-Smirnov 2-sample
test, P = 0.289).
|
The results for a typical unit (FL128) using the hand velocity model are shown in Fig. 7. The relationship between the actual and predicted discharge rates (Fig. 7A) was linear (adjustedr2 = 0.634; P < 0.0001). The residual error versus predicted discharge rate from the regression (Fig. 7B) was representative of 181 of 227 units used (79.7%). No discernable trend exists in the residuals. The cumulative distribution of the residuals (Fig. 7C) was fairly linear, indicating that the residual error was normal in its distribution. One limitation of the model was that it could not accurately predict a discharge rate of 0 Hz. The predicted discharge rate could be 0 Hz only when the hand speed was zero throughout the task. This limitation of the model was evident in 46 of the 227 regressions (20.3%). For example, the plot of the actual versus predicted discharge rate for unit GR26 (Fig. 8A) contained data points where the actual discharge rate was 0 Hz, but the predicted discharge rate was nonzero. The residual versus predicted plot (Fig. 8B) contained a linear portion around 0 Hz, reflecting this nonzero prediction of the discharge rate (adjusted-r2 = 0.720; P < 0.0001). All of these cases occurred when the discharge rate was <10 Hz. This reflects a limitation of the regression model for units with low discharge rates. The cumulative frequency of the residuals only deviated slightly from linearity as the residual value increased (Fig. 8C).
|
|
The results for the typical unit (FL128) using the JAV model with seven DOF are shown in Fig. 9. As with the hand model, the relationship between the actual and predicted discharge rates (Fig. 9A) was linear (adjusted-r2 = 0.338; P < 0.0001). This was representative of 179 of the 227 units used (78.9%). No discernable trend exists in the residuals (Fig. 9B). The cumulative distribution of the residuals (Fig. 9C) indicated that the residual error was normal in its distribution. The JAV model also had the limitation at low discharge rates found in the hand model. This limitation of the model was evident in 48 of the 227 regressions (21.1%).
|
Optimal regression
Figure 10 shows how often each factor had the largest standard partial regression coefficient. In the hand velocity model, the anterior/posterior velocity (51.5%) most frequently was the factor that explained most of the variance in discharge rate (Fig. 10A). The superior/inferior (23.5%) and right/left velocities (25.0%) made similar contributions to the model. In the JAV model, three angles accounted for 76.6% of the variance (Fig. 10B). The standard, partial regression coefficients for shoulder flexion, elbow flexion, and shoulder internal rotation were most frequently ranked first in all regression equations. Wrist flexion and pronation contributed the least to the regression. They were ranked first for only 2.1 and 3.1% of the regressions, respectively.
|
In the regression analyses above, three regression factors were used for the hand velocity model, and seven regression factors were used for the JAV model. Using the RBEST algorithm described in METHODS, we determined whether the full model (i.e., using all regression factors) was necessary to obtain the best-fitted regression. The best regressions for the hand velocity model (Fig. 11A) most frequently involved the full model (i.e., all 3 factors). In contrast, the best regressions for the JAV model most frequently involved only a partial model. More than one-half (63.6%) of the best-fitted regressions for the JAV model required four or less factors (Fig. 11B). Eighty-nine percent of the regressions required five factors or less in the model. Only 2% of the regressions required the full model (i.e., all 7 regression factors) for the best-fit.
|
Effects of the square-root transformation
It has been suggested that the square root transformation is a
"major statistical bias" that skews this type of statistical analysis (Todorov 2000). A square root transformation is
mathematically required when analyzing nonnormal data, such as cortical
discharge rates, with parametric statistical tests. Nevertheless, we
repeated our analysis using raw discharge rates (single bin, no square root transformation). The number of statistically significant regression equations to hand velocity decreased from 89.9% (204 of
227) for the square-root transformed data to 84.9% (191 of 225) for
the raw data. Similarly, the number of statistically significant
regressions to joint angular velocities decreased from 84.6% (192 of
227) to 82.7% (186 of 225). The contribution of the regression factors
remained essentially the same in both cases as seen in Table
4. The square root transform in no way skewed the interpretation of the results.
|
Population vector analysis
The three dimensions of hand velocity and the four dominant joint angular velocities were predicted from the cortical discharge rates using the population vector analysis. As described in METHODS, the population vector made with hand velocity tuning used a three-DOF model, and the population vector made with the joint angle tuning used a seven-DOF model. Only units with significant regression equations (P < 0.01) recorded from the right hemisphere during reaching with the left arm were used to create population vectors (n = 156 cortical units for hand velocity tuning; n = 145 cortical units for JAV tuning).
The predicted speed profiles for shoulder adduction/abduction, shoulder internal/external rotation, shoulder flexion/extension, and elbow flexion/extension are plotted in Fig. 12. The plots represent the average speed profiles for each of the eight movements predicted by the population vector model. Although the relative bell shapes of the predicted profiles approximate the actual speed profiles (Fig. 3), there are subtle differences in the relative peaks. Most notably, shoulder and elbow flexion/extension peak almost simultaneously in the actual reach, but shoulder flexion precedes elbow flexion by over 70 ms in the population vector prediction (for comparison, Fig. 3 vs. Fig. 12). In addition, the maximal speed predicted for shoulder adduction is approximately one-half of the actual speed obtained during the reach. The remaining three profiles give a better prediction of the actual peak speed for their respective joint angles.
|
The predicted velocity profiles for shoulder adduction/abduction and shoulder flexion/extension are plotted in Fig. 13. The plot represents the velocity profile predicted by the population vector model to two of the targets (3: superior, left, anterior; 6: inferior, right, posterior). The predicted velocity profile for shoulder adduction to target 3 is poor (%RMS error = 267). In general, the percentage of RMS error between the actual and predicted joint angular velocities was lowest for shoulder flexion/extension, elbow flexion/extension, and shoulder internal/external rotation. Further, the velocity profile predicted from the population vector model did not necessarily agree with that predicted from the Jacobian model. For example, the velocity profiles predicted by the population vector model (Fig. 13) differ from those of the Jacobian model (Fig. 5).
|
The population vector-derived trajectories of hand (green) and joint angular velocity (blue) are displayed in Fig. 14. Superimposed on this plot is the actual trajectory of the hand during the task (red). The minimum, average RMS errors between actual and predicted trajectories were 3.23 mm for the hand and 5.68 mm for the joint angles. These were found at a lead of 102 ms for the hand velocity model and 121 ms for the joint angular velocity model. Qualitatively there appears to be greater errors in the prediction to some targets using the joint angle tuning than the hand velocity tuning. However, no clear difference between the RMS errors of the two population trajectories can be demonstrated since the kinematic arm model adds, on average, a 4.5-mm error to the JAV-derived hand trajectory.
|
One bias that can limit the accuracy of a population vector approach is a preferred directional space that is not uniform. In other words, if the regression coefficients for the units were not uniformly distributed, then the population vector may be skewed. For example, if there were a high percentage of preferred directions to the right (in the case of hand velocity), then the population vector could be improperly skewed along that axis.
To test whether the regression coefficients formed a uniform distribution, we performed a bootstrap analysis. In the case of the JAV, the regression coefficients for each unit were considered to form a preferred direction in seven-dimensional space. These preferred directions represented unit vectors. The preferred directions were summed vectorially, and the resultant vector was calculated by dividing the sum by the number of unit vectors. In the ideal case, the resultant vector from a uniform distribution would be exactly 0. We compared the resultant vector to a bootstrapped distribution of 1,000 resultant vectors randomly created from a uniform seven-dimensional distribution of unit vectors. A resultant vector of 0.0828 was found to be >95% of the bootstrapped distribution for the seven-dimensional space, while a smaller resultant could be considered representative of a uniform space. The magnitude of the JAV resultant used in this analysis was 0.0901 and is slightly above this criterion. The same analysis applied to a three-dimensional space (spherical distribution) gives a resultant vector of 0.0940 for the 95% confidence interval. The hand velocity resultant was >99% of the bootstrapped distribution (resultant vector = 0.2225). Although preferred directions from both models were not strictly uniform, the population vector gave accurate predictions of the hand's trajectory.
![]() |
DISCUSSION |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
The "excess degrees of freedom" problem is a common theme in
contemporary discussions of reaching (Haggard et al.
1995; Helms-Tillery et al. 1995
; Sanger
2000
). When moving through free space, only three of the seven
DOF in the arm are needed to specify the position of the hand in space.
This implies that to complete a reaching movement, the combination of
joints used to rotate the arm segments must somehow be chosen
from an infinite set of possibilities. Several studies have asked
whether arm posture (specified by the combined set of joint angles) or
hand displacement is represented in cortical activity (Caminiti
et al. 1990
; Kakei et al. 1999
; Scott and
Kalaska 1995
, 1997
). Although arm posture may
have an effect on motor cortical activity, we have found single-cell
and population activity to be more robustly related to hand velocity (Moran and Schwartz 1999b
; Schwartz et al.
1988
). Clearly the hand's trajectory is important
behaviorally, as many studies have shown stereotypical reaching
trajectories with invariant characteristics preserved across a wide set
of conditions (Atkeson and Hollerbach 1985
;
Georgopoulos et al. 1981
; Morasso 1981
;
Soechting et al. 1981
).
Our previous work has demonstrated that the hand's velocity, that is,
its speed and direction, is well represented in motor cortical activity
during both reaching and drawing (Moran and Schwartz
1999a,b
; Schwartz 1993
; Schwartz and
Moran 1999
). For arm movements along the same path but in
opposite directions, the motor cortical activity was differentially
modulated, although the joint angles were the same for each point along
the opposing paths (Moran and Schwartz 1999b
). This
implied that the joint angles per se were not well-correlated to
cortical activity. However, if hand velocity is the extrinsic parameter
represented in the population of cortical discharge rates, then joint
angular velocity might be the more appropriate intrinsic parameter with
which to make comparisons.
Recent studies have attempted to determine whether the selection of
joint angles specifies the arm trajectory or is secondary to it
(Caminiti et al. 1990; Kakei et al. 1999
;
Scott and Kalaska 1995
, 1997
). The
overall conclusion of these studies has been that both intrinsic and
extrinsic parameters can be correlated to the activity of individual
cortical neurons. Indeed, our results confirm these past studies.
However, our findings, both through direct correlation and the Jacobian
matrix approach, suggest that hand velocity is well correlated to some
joint angular velocities of the arm (specifically, shoulder
flexion/extension, shoulder internal/external rotation, and elbow
flexion/extension). In addition, the temporal relationship between the
population of cortical units and joint angular velocity shows large
errors in the predicted peaks of elbow and shoulder speeds (Fig. 12).
Specifically, the shoulder flexion/extension preceded the elbow
flexion/extension by over 70 ms even though the two peaked
simultaneously during the actual reach. This corresponds to the results
of Murphy et al. (1982)
, who found that the activity of
"shoulder-related units" preceded that of "elbow-related units"
in the reaching task. Although these timing discrepancies did not
generate large errors in the handpath during reaching, this type of
temporal offset could lead to significant handpath distortion in more
complex tasks, such as drawing.
In summary, this study resulted in three findings: 1) hand velocity and joint angular velocities were equally powerful predictors of motor cortical discharge rate; 2) the subset of joint angular velocities required to predict neuronal activity in M1 adequately were well correlated to the extrinsic parameters; 3) observations of joint angular "control" by M1 neurons may be a secondary to the high correlation between intrinsic and extrinsic reference frames.
Velocity-discharge correspondence
Moran and Schwartz (1999a) showed that the temporal
profile of cortical discharge was well correlated to the bell-shaped
velocity profile of the arm during reaching in a task that was similar to this. Therefore it is expected that any pair of bell-shaped profiles
such as those generally found for the DOF in this experiment and hand
velocity would be correlated. Nonetheless, it is interesting that
velocity as a parameter is so well represented in the activity of these
neurons. Behavioral studies (Soechting and Lacquaniti 1981
) have shown that the velocity profile of the hand
is bell-shaped, consistent in a wide range of reaching tasks, and the
root of invariants such as isochrony and motor equivalence. This shape is ideal for both scaling and smoothness, criteria that make complex systems more efficient to control (Hollerbach and Flash
1982
; Morasso et al. 1981
).
Relative importance of angular degrees of freedom
JAVs of the shoulder and elbow tended to contribute more to the fit of the regression than those of the forearm and wrist. Wrist flexion and pronation contributed the least to the fit of the JAV model based on their standard, partial regression coefficients. Four possible explanations for this finding were considered: 1) angular velocities for wrist flexion and pronation varied little throughout the task (i.e., relatively constant joint angles); 2) the sampled area of M1 contained few units that correlated with wrist and forearm movement; 3) wrist flexion and pronation contributed little to the accurate performance of the reaching task; and 4) relative importance of the joint angle may vary throughout the movement.
If the angular velocity for a particular joint had a low variance
throughout the reach, its coefficient would generally not contribute
much to the regression fit. Elbow flexion, shoulder flexion, and
shoulder internal rotation are the joint angles that obtain the largest
variations in speed during the centerout task (Fig. 3). This may
have contributed to their relative importance in the regression.
However, the joint angular speed for pronation was greater on average
than that of shoulder adduction. Further, total angular displacement
for pronation was also greater than that for shoulder adduction.
Nevertheless, shoulder adduction had the largest standardized
coefficient in 10.4% of the regressions, whereas pronation had the
largest standardized coefficient in only 3.1% of the regressions.
These data indicate that the importance of a particular joint velocity
in the regression is not necessarily correlated with its variation
within the movement.
The second possibility considered was that the sampled area of M1 contained few units that were correlated with wrist activity. After each unit was recorded, a passive examination of arm movement about each joint was performed. Of the 298 units studied, 253 had unequivocal modulations of activity about at least one joint. One hundred ninety-nine of the 253 (78.7%) were related only to passive movement of the shoulder and/or elbow. Only 54 of the 253 (21.3%) were related to passive movement of the wrist and/or hand. Thirty-two of the 54 wrist-related units were task related and had significant regression fits to joint angular velocity. The results of this wrist-related subpopulation of cortical units were similar to those of the entire population: namely, the best regression typically required four or less joint angular velocities, and the shoulder and elbow angular velocities contributed most to the fit of the regression. It is unlikely therefore that the sampled area of M1 biased the results.
If movement about a particular joint (e.g., wrist flexion) did not contribute substantially to the accuracy of the reaching task, then that movement may have contributed less to the fit of the regression. In the experimental setup, the IRED marker that controlled the cursor was positioned on the hand dorsum. It is likely that wrist movements generated only relatively small displacements of the cursor toward the target in comparison to movements of the shoulder and elbow. This was tested by selectively removing different joint rotations from the kinematic arm model and measuring the resulting errors in reach. The models without shoulder flexion, elbow flexion, and shoulder internal rotation had RMS errors of 24.4, 32.8, and 29.4 mm. The error produced by these models is more than five times that of the full model (full model = 4.5 mm). Without the remaining joint angles, the models also had statistically significant increases in error: shoulder adduction (mean 6.5 mm), pronation (7.1 mm), wrist flexion (5.3 mm), and wrist abduction (5.0 mm). However, these errors were much smaller than those of shoulder internal rotation, shoulder flexion, and elbow flexion (only 1.1-1.6 times the error of the full model). Wrist flexion and pronation make statistically significant, yet relatively small contributions to hand displacement in this reaching task.
The fourth possibility we considered was that the relative importance of the joint angular velocities varied throughout the task. We re-analyzed the reaching movement using the discharge rates within the reaction time (RT, epoch from the target's appearance to the onset of movement) and the movement time (MT, epoch from the movement onset to offset). The relative importance of the joint angular velocities and the number of regressors for the best model were equivalent across epochs.
Extrinsic versus intrinsic space
The transformation from hand position to joint posture is both
nonunique and nonlinear. For a reasonably small workspace, with only
two DOF, and assuming stereotypical movements, the inverse of the
Jacobian matrix (J[p,
]+) has been
theorized to describe a locally linear relationship between hand
velocity and joint angular velocity (Mussa-Ivaldi 1988
).
Indeed, our data were so consistent for three of the arm angles, both
within a single movement and between movements to different targets,
that we were able to use a simple linear regression to perform inverse
kinematics on the joint angular velocities (Table 3). These same angles
were also well predicted in the Jacobian analysis.
However, the remaining four joint angular velocities were not as well correlated with extrinsic coordinates. We estimated joint angular velocities from the actual hand velocities using either a Jacobian matrix that was calculated at the center position in the workspace and held constant, or a Jacobian matrix that was re-calculated at each instantaneous posture (i.e., bin) during the reach. Table 5 shows the RMS error for each estimated joint angular velocity as a percentage of the actual, mean joint angular velocity. The Jacobian approach clearly failed to predict shoulder adduction/abduction or the distal three DOF, and this approach is unsuitable for predicting these four DOF. Further, it has been assumed for reasonably small workspaces that the Jacobian matrix would be relatively constant. However, the RMS error for shoulder and elbow flexion/extension is much lower for the continuously calculated estimate than for the constant estimate (Table 5), showing that the assumption of a constant Jacobian matrix does not give optimal results.
|
A fair number of recorded units (44%) were driven by passive adduction/abduction of the shoulder, which shows that the topographical region of motor cortex we sampled contained units sensitive to this type of angular displacement. However, the Jacobian method and the population vector method generally made different predictions of this parameter, and neither prediction was very accurate. This suggests that the good prediction of the other three joint angular velocities by the population vector analysis is due to their strong correlation with the extrinsic velocity of the hand. This population analysis was able to detect changes in timing between those three joint angles that neither the Jacobian nor the correlation could detect. Both results lead us to conclude that extrinsic parameters are better represented than intrinsic parameters in the cortical activity. However, more experiments using tasks where the two reference frames are more dissociated will be needed to substantiate this conclusion.
Nonetheless, it is useful to emphasize the strong correlation between three of the main intrinsic DOFs and the extrinsic hand velocity. This correlation during such a common, natural movement such as unconstrained reaching may be indicative of an optimized planning strategy. Such a characteristic would have the advantage of obviating an explicit step or calculation between reference frames.
![]() |
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
---|
This work was supported by the McDonnell-Pew Foundation and the Neurosciences Research Foundation.
![]() |
FOOTNOTES |
---|
Address for reprint requests: A. B. Schwartz, The Neurosciences Institute, 10640 John Jay Hopkins Dr., San Diego, CA 92121 (E-mail: aschwartz{at}nsi.edu).
Received 15 August 2000; accepted in final form 5 February 2001.
![]() |
REFERENCES |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|