Interfacing sensory input with motor output: Does the control architecture converge to a serial process along a single channel?

10Citations
Citations of this article
65Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Modular organisation in control architecture may underlie the versatility of human motor control; but the nature of the interface relating sensory input through task-selection in the space of performance variables to control actions in the space of the elemental variables is currently unknown. Our central question is whether the control architecture converges to a serial process along a single channel? In discrete reaction time experiments, psychologists have firmly associated a serial single channel hypothesis with refractoriness and response selection (psychological refractory period). Recently, we developed a methodology and evidence identifying refractoriness in sustained control of an external single degree-of- freedom system. We hypothesise that multi-segmental whole-body control also shows refractoriness. Eight participants controlled their whole body to ensure a head marker tracked a target as fast and accurately as possible. Analysis showed enhanced delays in response to stimuli with close temporal proximity to the preceding stimulus. Consistent with our preceding work, this evidence is incompatible with control as a linear time invariant process. This evidence is consistent with a single-channel serial ballistic process within the intermittent control paradigm with an intermittent interval of around 0.5 s. A control architecture reproducing intentional human movement control must reproduce refractoriness. Intermittent control is designed to provide computational time for an online optimisation process and is appropriate for flexible adaptive control. For human motor control we suggest that parallel sensory input converges to a serial, single channel process involving planning, selection and temporal inhibition of alternative responses prior to low dimensional motor output. Such design could aid robots to reproduce the flexibility of human control. © 2013 Van_de_kamp, Gawthrop, Gollee, Lakie and Loram.

References Powered by Scopus

Optimality principles in sensorimotor control

1342Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

The basal ganglia: A vertebrate solution to the selection problem?

906Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Toward a new theory of motor synergies

629Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Editorial: Modularity in motor control: From muscle synergies to cognitive action representation

69Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Spinal Mechanisms May Provide a Combination of Intermittent and Continuous Control of Human Posture: Predictions from a Biologically Based Neuromusculoskeletal Model

69Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Intermittent control models of human standing: Similarities and differences

64Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

van de Kamp, C., Gawthrop, P. J., Gollee, H., Lakie, M., & Loram, I. D. (2013). Interfacing sensory input with motor output: Does the control architecture converge to a serial process along a single channel? Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, (APR 2013). https://doi.org/10.3389/fncom.2013.00055

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 27

54%

Researcher 11

22%

Professor / Associate Prof. 8

16%

Lecturer / Post doc 4

8%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Engineering 13

33%

Neuroscience 9

23%

Medicine and Dentistry 9

23%

Psychology 8

21%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free