Tweet
Dear BIOMCH-Lers:
Here goes a summary of the responses I received on "torso motion during
reaching". I sincerely thank all those who reponded.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
You should contact Dr. Amy Tyler (atyler@saunix.sau.edu). She has
conducted studies of trunk EMG during para-sagittal plane arm movements and
would be able to point you in the right direction.
Cole Galloway
galloway@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm also working on the coordination of arm and trunk movement during
reaching, but in normal and in stroke patients (it's my Master's research
project). I know of only one paper on the subject, which was based on a
small project done in the lab where I work. The reference is:
Ma S, Feldman AG. Two functionally different synergies during arm
reaching movements involving the trunk. J of Neurophysiology 73:
2120-2122, 1995.
Philippe Archambault
philor@alphacom.net
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
My research is concerned with the stusy of coordination changes and problems
with those changes in different neurological populations. I am using
"dynamical systems' principles and methods to look at changes and stability
issues in the coordination between body segments. In the human walking
research this concerns changes between arm and leg movements, but also
between pelvis and thorax rotations. If you want any more specific
information, please let me know.
Richard Van Emmerik
vanemmer@frost.oit.umass.edu
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I have just completed some work looking at the coordination of the
trunk and arm segments in reaching. I have submitted a paper to
Human movement science and I am waiting to hear back. There is not
much research about looking at the trunk in reaching at all. If you
have any specific questions I would be happy to try and answer them.
I will forward you a copy of my paper after it has been accepted
for publication.
Hope this is useful,
cath Dean
PT_DEAN@cchs.su.edu.au
--------------------------------------------------------------------
As I mentioned, I have done some research on aimed arm movements
where people point to targets arranged on a table surface. They
are free to move four degrees of freedom: wrist flexion/extension,
elbow flexion/extension, horizontal ab/adduction of the right
shoulder, and rotation about the long axis of the spine (yes, this
does include clavicle motion, but since both are small, we have
lumped them together into a single degree of freedom for now).
Because people are seated in front of a table they can't move their
trunk much in the anterior/posterior axis, only about 10 cm in general.
Our analyses have focused on understanding how arm configurations
at the end point of movements to a single target are affected by
initial conditions, in particular the location of the starting point,
and the configuration of the arm at the starting point. We find
considerable variation in final arm configurations. The most
consistent finding when looking at final arm configurations
is that all subjects show substantial negative correlations between
torso and shoulder angles (r values ranged from -.73 to -.91 across
7 subjects). Thus, when their final arm configuration includes a
torso anlge that rotates the right shoulder backwards, the shoulder
angle tends to be more adducted (flexed) than the norm. Likewise,
if their final arm configurations includes a torso angle that rotates
the left shoulder backwards, the shoulder angle tends to be relatively
abducted (extended). This is not biomechanically obligatory. It is
possible to adapt torso and shoulder angles that do not lead to this
strong correlation.
As for relationships between torso angles at the beginning and end of
the movement, there is considerably less regularity. We repeated the
procedures of making movement from 30 starting points to a given
target at five separate targets. For one target close to the right
shoulder, the average correlation between starting and final torso angle
across 5 subjects was 0.638. At the other targets, one in the center
of the workspace, and three others at the other three corners of the
workspace), the average starting/final torso correlations were below
0.50. There were some differences across subjects. Across targets,
two subjects showed average correlations of 0.52 and 0.60, whereas
the other three subjects had r values of 0.13, 0.32 and 0.38. Hence,
there were both individual differences, and differences according to
where the target was placed. Those individual differences were also
evident in the kinematics of the other joints, especially the wrist.
Well, that pretty much summarizes what we looked at in terms of torso
motion during reaching.
This work is done in collaboration with Charles E. Wright, and has
been presented mostly as posters at the Society for Neuroscience.
Let me know if you'd like me to send you reprints of any of the
following.
States, R.A. (1994) Resolving indeterminacy associated with joint-
level motor equivalence in planar aimed arm movements. Doctoral
thesis, Columbia University.
States, R.A. & Wright, C.E. (1993). An empirical study of joint-level
motor equivalence at the end-point of planar aimed arm movements.
Society for Nueroscience Abstracts, 19(1), #228.2.
States, R.A. & Wright, C.E. (1994). The relative contributions of
geometric and behavioral constraints in resolving joint-level motor
equivalence. Society for Neuroscience Abstracts, 20, #576.11.
States, R.A. & Wright, C.E. (submitted to JMB). Can expected value
models provide an adequate solution to the joint-level motor equivalence
probelm?
Wright, C.E. & States, R.A. (1992). Joint angle determinants in aimed
arm movements with excess degrees of freedom. Poster presented at the
33rd Annual Meeting of teh Psychonomic Society: St. Louis, MO, Nov. 1992.
Rebecca A. State, Ph.D.
states@tam2000.tamu.edu
------------------------------------------------------------------
__________________________________________________ _____ ___ ___
Xudong Zhang [ \ / ]
Dept of Industrial & Operations Engineering |MICHIGAN|
The University of Michigan Internet: xudong@umich.edu | |\ /| |
__________________________________________________ _____ [___]\/[___]
Here goes a summary of the responses I received on "torso motion during
reaching". I sincerely thank all those who reponded.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
You should contact Dr. Amy Tyler (atyler@saunix.sau.edu). She has
conducted studies of trunk EMG during para-sagittal plane arm movements and
would be able to point you in the right direction.
Cole Galloway
galloway@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm also working on the coordination of arm and trunk movement during
reaching, but in normal and in stroke patients (it's my Master's research
project). I know of only one paper on the subject, which was based on a
small project done in the lab where I work. The reference is:
Ma S, Feldman AG. Two functionally different synergies during arm
reaching movements involving the trunk. J of Neurophysiology 73:
2120-2122, 1995.
Philippe Archambault
philor@alphacom.net
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
My research is concerned with the stusy of coordination changes and problems
with those changes in different neurological populations. I am using
"dynamical systems' principles and methods to look at changes and stability
issues in the coordination between body segments. In the human walking
research this concerns changes between arm and leg movements, but also
between pelvis and thorax rotations. If you want any more specific
information, please let me know.
Richard Van Emmerik
vanemmer@frost.oit.umass.edu
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I have just completed some work looking at the coordination of the
trunk and arm segments in reaching. I have submitted a paper to
Human movement science and I am waiting to hear back. There is not
much research about looking at the trunk in reaching at all. If you
have any specific questions I would be happy to try and answer them.
I will forward you a copy of my paper after it has been accepted
for publication.
Hope this is useful,
cath Dean
PT_DEAN@cchs.su.edu.au
--------------------------------------------------------------------
As I mentioned, I have done some research on aimed arm movements
where people point to targets arranged on a table surface. They
are free to move four degrees of freedom: wrist flexion/extension,
elbow flexion/extension, horizontal ab/adduction of the right
shoulder, and rotation about the long axis of the spine (yes, this
does include clavicle motion, but since both are small, we have
lumped them together into a single degree of freedom for now).
Because people are seated in front of a table they can't move their
trunk much in the anterior/posterior axis, only about 10 cm in general.
Our analyses have focused on understanding how arm configurations
at the end point of movements to a single target are affected by
initial conditions, in particular the location of the starting point,
and the configuration of the arm at the starting point. We find
considerable variation in final arm configurations. The most
consistent finding when looking at final arm configurations
is that all subjects show substantial negative correlations between
torso and shoulder angles (r values ranged from -.73 to -.91 across
7 subjects). Thus, when their final arm configuration includes a
torso anlge that rotates the right shoulder backwards, the shoulder
angle tends to be more adducted (flexed) than the norm. Likewise,
if their final arm configurations includes a torso angle that rotates
the left shoulder backwards, the shoulder angle tends to be relatively
abducted (extended). This is not biomechanically obligatory. It is
possible to adapt torso and shoulder angles that do not lead to this
strong correlation.
As for relationships between torso angles at the beginning and end of
the movement, there is considerably less regularity. We repeated the
procedures of making movement from 30 starting points to a given
target at five separate targets. For one target close to the right
shoulder, the average correlation between starting and final torso angle
across 5 subjects was 0.638. At the other targets, one in the center
of the workspace, and three others at the other three corners of the
workspace), the average starting/final torso correlations were below
0.50. There were some differences across subjects. Across targets,
two subjects showed average correlations of 0.52 and 0.60, whereas
the other three subjects had r values of 0.13, 0.32 and 0.38. Hence,
there were both individual differences, and differences according to
where the target was placed. Those individual differences were also
evident in the kinematics of the other joints, especially the wrist.
Well, that pretty much summarizes what we looked at in terms of torso
motion during reaching.
This work is done in collaboration with Charles E. Wright, and has
been presented mostly as posters at the Society for Neuroscience.
Let me know if you'd like me to send you reprints of any of the
following.
States, R.A. (1994) Resolving indeterminacy associated with joint-
level motor equivalence in planar aimed arm movements. Doctoral
thesis, Columbia University.
States, R.A. & Wright, C.E. (1993). An empirical study of joint-level
motor equivalence at the end-point of planar aimed arm movements.
Society for Nueroscience Abstracts, 19(1), #228.2.
States, R.A. & Wright, C.E. (1994). The relative contributions of
geometric and behavioral constraints in resolving joint-level motor
equivalence. Society for Neuroscience Abstracts, 20, #576.11.
States, R.A. & Wright, C.E. (submitted to JMB). Can expected value
models provide an adequate solution to the joint-level motor equivalence
probelm?
Wright, C.E. & States, R.A. (1992). Joint angle determinants in aimed
arm movements with excess degrees of freedom. Poster presented at the
33rd Annual Meeting of teh Psychonomic Society: St. Louis, MO, Nov. 1992.
Rebecca A. State, Ph.D.
states@tam2000.tamu.edu
------------------------------------------------------------------
__________________________________________________ _____ ___ ___
Xudong Zhang [ \ / ]
Dept of Industrial & Operations Engineering |MICHIGAN|
The University of Michigan Internet: xudong@umich.edu | |\ /| |
__________________________________________________ _____ [___]\/[___]