Intention Tremor and Deficits of Sensory Feedback Control in Multiple Sclerosis: a Pilot Study

Background Intention tremor and dysmetria are leading causes of upper extremity disability in Multiple Sclerosis (MS). The development of effective therapies to reduce tremor and dysmetria is hampered by insufficient understanding of how the distributed, multi-focal lesions associated with MS impact sensorimotor control in the brain. Here we describe a systems-level approach to characterizing sensorimotor control and use this approach to examine how sensory and motor processes are differentially impacted by MS. Methods Eight subjects with MS and eight age- and gender-matched healthy control subjects performed visually-guided flexion/extension tasks about the elbow to characterize a sensory feedback control model that includes three sensory feedback pathways (one for vision, another for proprioception and a third providing an internal prediction of the sensory consequences of action). The model allows us to characterize impairments in sensory feedback control that contributed to each MS subject’s tremor. Results Models derived from MS subject performance differed from those obtained for control subjects in two ways. First, subjects with MS exhibited markedly increased visual feedback delays, which were uncompensated by internal adaptive mechanisms; stabilization performance in individuals with the longest delays differed most from control subject performance. Second, subjects with MS exhibited misestimates of arm dynamics in a way that was correlated with tremor power. Subject-specific models accurately predicted kinematic performance in a reach and hold task for neurologically-intact control subjects while simulated performance of MS patients had shorter movement intervals and larger endpoint errors than actual subject responses. This difference between simulated and actual performance is consistent with a strategic compensatory trade-off of movement speed for endpoint accuracy. Conclusions Our results suggest that tremor and dysmetria may be caused by limitations in the brain’s ability to adapt sensory feedback mechanisms to compensate for increases in visual information processing time, as well as by errors in compensatory adaptations of internal estimates of arm dynamics

Adaptive intermittent control: A computational model explaining motor intermittency observed in human behavior

It is a fundamental question how our brain performs a given motor task in a real-time fashion with the slow sensorimotor system. Computational theory proposed an influential idea of feed-forward control, but it has mainly treated the case that the movement is ballistic (such as reaching) because the motor commands should be calculated in advance of movement execution. As a possible mechanism for operating feed-forward control in continuous motor tasks (such as target tracking), we propose a control model called "adaptive intermittent control" or "segmented control," that brain adaptively divides the continuous time axis into discrete segments and executes feed-forward control in each segment. The idea of intermittent control has been proposed in the fields of control theory, biological modeling and nonlinear dynamical system. Compared with these previous models, the key of the proposed model is that the system speculatively determines the segmentation based on the future prediction and its uncertainty. The result of computer simulation showed that the proposed model realized faithful visuo-manual tracking with realistic sensorimotor delays and with less computational costs (i.e., with fewer number of segments). Furthermore, it replicated "motor intermittency", that is, intermittent discontinuities commonly observed in human movement trajectories. We discuss that the temporally segmented control is an inevitable strategy for brain which has to achieve a given task with small computational (or cognitive) cost, using a slow control system in an uncertain variable environment, and the motor intermittency is the side-effect of this strategy

Action and behavior: a free-energy formulation

We have previously tried to explain perceptual inference and learning under a free-energy principle that pursues Helmholtz’s agenda to understand the brain in terms of energy minimization. It is fairly easy to show that making inferences about the causes of sensory data can be cast as the minimization of a free-energy bound on the likelihood of sensory inputs, given an internal model of how they were caused. In this article, we consider what would happen if the data themselves were sampled to minimize this bound. It transpires that the ensuing active sampling or inference is mandated by ergodic arguments based on the very existence of adaptive agents. Furthermore, it accounts for many aspects of motor behavior; from retinal stabilization to goal-seeking. In particular, it suggests that motor control can be understood as fulfilling prior expectations about proprioceptive sensations. This formulation can explain why adaptive behavior emerges in biological agents and suggests a simple alternative to optimal control theory. We illustrate these points using simulations of oculomotor control and then apply to same principles to cued and goal-directed movements. In short, the free-energy formulation may provide an alternative perspective on the motor control that places it in an intimate relationship with perception

Remembering Forward: Neural Correlates of Memory and Prediction in Human Motor Adaptation

We used functional MR imaging (FMRI), a robotic manipulandum and systems identification techniques to examine neural correlates of predictive compensation for spring-like loads during goal-directed wrist movements in neurologically-intact humans. Although load changed unpredictably from one trial to the next, subjects nevertheless used sensorimotor memories from recent movements to predict and compensate upcoming loads. Prediction enabled subjects to adapt performance so that the task was accomplished with minimum effort. Population analyses of functional images revealed a distributed, bilateral network of cortical and subcortical activity supporting predictive load compensation during visual target capture. Cortical regions – including prefrontal, parietal and hippocampal cortices – exhibited trial-by-trial fluctuations in BOLD signal consistent with the storage and recall of sensorimotor memories or “states” important for spatial working memory. Bilateral activations in associative regions of the striatum demonstrated temporal correlation with the magnitude of kinematic performance error (a signal that could drive reward-optimizing reinforcement learning and the prospective scaling of previously learned motor programs). BOLD signal correlations with load prediction were observed in the cerebellar cortex and red nuclei (consistent with the idea that these structures generate adaptive fusimotor signals facilitating cancelation of expected proprioceptive feedback, as required for conditional feedback adjustments to ongoing motor commands and feedback error learning). Analysis of single subject images revealed that predictive activity was at least as likely to be observed in more than one of these neural systems as in just one. We conclude therefore that motor adaptation is mediated by predictive compensations supported by multiple, distributed, cortical and subcortical structures

The hippocampus and cerebellum in adaptively timed learning, recognition, and movement

The concepts of declarative memory and procedural memory have been used to distinguish two basic types of learning. A neural network model suggests how such memory processes work together as recognition learning, reinforcement learning, and sensory-motor learning take place during adaptive behaviors. To coordinate these processes, the hippocampal formation and cerebellum each contain circuits that learn to adaptively time their outputs. Within the model, hippocampal timing helps to maintain attention on motivationally salient goal objects during variable task-related delays, and cerebellar timing controls the release of conditioned responses. This property is part of the model's description of how cognitive-emotional interactions focus attention on motivationally valued cues, and how this process breaks down due to hippocampal ablation. The model suggests that the hippocampal mechanisms that help to rapidly draw attention to salient cues could prematurely release motor commands were not the release of these commands adaptively timed by the cerebellum. The model hippocampal system modulates cortical recognition learning without actually encoding the representational information that the cortex encodes. These properties avoid the difficulties faced by several models that propose a direct hippocampal role in recognition learning. Learning within the model hippocampal system controls adaptive timing and spatial orientation. Model properties hereby clarify how hippocampal ablations cause amnesic symptoms and difficulties with tasks which combine task delays, novelty detection, and attention towards goal objects amid distractions. When these model recognition, reinforcement, sensory-motor, and timing processes work together, they suggest how the brain can accomplish conditioning of multiple sensory events to delayed rewards, as during serial compound conditioning.Air Force Office of Scientific Research (F49620-92-J-0225, F49620-86-C-0037, 90-0128); Advanced Research Projects Agency (ONR N00014-92-J-4015); Office of Naval Research (N00014-91-J-4100, N00014-92-J-1309, N00014-92-J-1904); National Institute of Mental Health (MH-42900

Neural Representations for Sensory-Motor Control, II: Learning a Head-Centered Visuomotor Representation of 3-D Target Position

A neural network model is described for how an invariant head-centered representation of 3-D target position can be autonomously learned by the brain in real time. Once learned, such a target representation may be used to control both eye and limb movements. The target representation is derived from the positions of both eyes in the head, and the locations which the target activates on the retinas of both eyes. A Vector Associative Map, or YAM, learns the many-to-one transformation from multiple combinations of eye-and-retinal position to invariant 3-D target position. Eye position is derived from outflow movement signals to the eye muscles. Two successive stages of opponent processing convert these corollary discharges into a. head-centered representation that closely approximates the azimuth, elevation, and vergence of the eyes' gaze position with respect to a cyclopean origin located between the eyes. YAM learning combines this cyclopean representation of present gaze position with binocular retinal information about target position into an invariant representation of 3-D target position with respect to the head. YAM learning can use a teaching vector that is externally derived from the positions of the eyes when they foveate the target. A YAM can also autonomously discover and learn the invariant representation, without an explicit teacher, by generating internal error signals from environmental fluctuations in which these invariant properties are implicit. YAM error signals are computed by Difference Vectors, or DVs, that are zeroed by the YAM learning process. YAMs may be organized into YAM Cascades for learning and performing both sensory-to-spatial maps and spatial-to-motor maps. These multiple uses clarify why DV-type properties are computed by cells in the parietal, frontal, and motor cortices of many mammals. YAMs are modulated by gating signals that express different aspects of the will-to-act. These signals transform a single invariant representation into movements of different speed (GO signal) and size (GRO signal), and thereby enable YAM controllers to match a planned action sequence to variable environmental conditions.National Science Foundation (IRI-87-16960, IRI-90-24877); Office of Naval Research (N00014-92-J-1309

Integrating Symbolic and Neural Processing in a Self-Organizing Architechture for Pattern Recognition and Prediction

British Petroleum (89A-1204); Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (N00014-92-J-4015); National Science Foundation (IRI-90-00530); Office of Naval Research (N00014-91-J-4100); Air Force Office of Scientific Research (F49620-92-J-0225

Backwards is the way forward: feedback in the cortical hierarchy predicts the expected future

Clark offers a powerful description of the brain as a prediction machine, which offers progress on two distinct levels. First, on an abstract conceptual level, it provides a unifying framework for perception, action, and cognition (including subdivisions such as attention, expectation, and imagination). Second, hierarchical prediction offers progress on a concrete descriptive level for testing and constraining conceptual elements and mechanisms of predictive coding models (estimation of predictions, prediction errors, and internal models)