Biol. Cybern. 90, 368–375 (2004)
DOI 10.1007/s00422-004-0484-4
© Springer-Verlag 2004
A model of force and impedance in human arm movements
K. P. Tee1 , E. Burdet1,2 , C. M. Chew1 , T. E. Milner3
1
2
3
Department of Mechanical Engineering, National University of Singapore
Division of Bioengineering, National University of Singapore
School of Kinesiology, Simon Fraser University, Canada
Received: 24 July 2003 / Accepted: 21 April 2004 / Published online: 14 June 2004
Abstract. This paper describes a simple computational
model of joint torque and impedance in human arm movements that can be used to simulate three-dimensional
movements of the (redundant) arm or leg and to design
the control of robots and human–machine interfaces. This
model, based on recent physiological findings, assumes
that (1) the central nervous system learns the force and
impedance to perform a task successfully in a given stable or unstable dynamic environment and (2) stiffness is
linearly related to the magnitude of the joint torque and
increased to compensate for environment instability. Comparison with existing data shows that this simple model is
able to predict impedance geometry well.
Keywords: Motor adaptation – Impedance – Force –
Stable and unstable interactions
1 Introduction
Most activities that we perform with our hands involve
interaction with the environment. This interaction imposes forces on the hand and can also destabilize motion.
However, humans have excellent capabilities to manipulate objects. This means that the central nervous system
(CNS) is able to adapt to various task dynamics. For example, one may have difficulty in opening a door for the first
time due to unknown friction. However, after one or two
trials the appropriate force will be learned, and one will
open the door without difficulty and even without thinking about it.
Many tasks performed with tools are inherently
unstable (Rancourt and Hogan 2001) and consequently
require the acquisition of additional skills, because in
unstable tasks different initial conditions, neuromotor
noise (Schmidt et al. 1979; Slifkin and Newell 1999), or
any small external perturbation can lead to inconsistent
Correspondence to: E. Burdet
(e-mail: e.burdet@ieee.org, http://guppy.mpe.nus.edu.sg/∼eburdet)
and unsuccessful performance. To learn more about human motor adaptation, recent works have investigated the
adaptation to stable (Shadmehr and Mussa-Ivaldi 1994;
Shadmehr and Holcomb 1997; Conditt and Mussa-Ivaldi
1997) and unstable (Burdet et al. 2001; Franklin et al.
2003b; Osu et al. 2003; Franklin et al. 2003c) interactions
produced by a haptic interface.
Understanding how humans interact with the environment can provide insight into the neural mechanisms of
motor learning and adaptation with potential application to computer animation of human motion and neuromotor rehabilitation and to the development of robots
collaborating with human operators. On one hand, it
may be advantageous to use humanlike control strategies
for improving robot control, in particular with regard to
safety (Bicchi et al. 2001). On the other hand, there have
been recent significant advances in medical robotics (Surgical robots 2004) and teleoperation and micro/nanotechnology (Zhang et al. 2002), all of which rely on haptic
interfaces to allow the human operator to feel and manipulate objects not directly accessible to the hand. The safety
and performance of such systems critically depend on motion stability, i.e., the coupled stability of the arm interacting with the environment (Colgate and Hogan 1988).
To adequately control these systems, it would be useful
to know the mechanical impedance, i.e., the resistance to
infinitesimal perturbations applied at the hand.
Mechanical impedance of the human arm can be
evaluated from the restoring force to slight perturbations
imposed in static positions (Mussa-Ivaldi et al. 1985) or
during movement (Bennett et al. 1992; Bennett 1993; Milner 1993; Gomi and Kawato 1997; Burdet et al. 2000). It is
possible to measure the impedance in movements involving a given stable or unstable interaction (Burdet et al.
1999, 2001; Franklin et al. 2003b). However, this requires
many movements, and it would be more useful to have
a compact model to describe the force and impedance in
every dynamic interaction. Impedance was shown to depend on position (Mussa-Ivaldi et al. 1985), force (Gomi
and Osu 1998; Perreault et al. 2001), and instability (Burdet et al. 2001), but no comprehensive model has been
proposed so far. This paper introduces a simple model of
369
force and impedance formulated in joint space, provides
comparisons with previous measurements that show its
predictive power, and discusses its relevance and the extent of its validity.
2 Model
The model introduced in this section describes how the
arm force and impedance, necessary to simulate arm motion in a given environment, can be computed from the
dynamic characteristics of the environment. The following description uses bold vectors v and matrices M and
italic scalars s.
2.1 Joint torque
The joint torque τ produced by muscles to perform a
learned task consists of two components, viz. the torque to
compensate for the external force FE applied on the hand
and the torque τ B necessary to move the limbs:
τ = −J(q)T FE + τ B ,
(1)
Nxi
where J(q) ≡ Nqj is the (position-dependent) Jacobian of
the transformation between Cartesian and joint space, i.e.,
the external force is transformed into joint torque using
the Jacobian. q is the vector of joint angles. How can τ B
be evaluated? The main forces arising when moving the
bones and flesh are the inertia of the corresponding rigidbody dynamics τ B , elasticity due to muscles, tendons, etc.,
and reflexes. Psychophysical experiments (Shadmehr and
Mussa-Ivaldi 1994; Lackner and Dizio 1994; Conditt and
Mussa-Ivaldi 1997; Franklin et al. 2003b) suggest that,
for movements repeated in a novel dynamic environment,
the CNS learns to compensate for the predictable forces
exerted on the arm during movement by forming an internal inverse dynamics model of the task (Kawato 1999).
Elastic forces and reflex feedback forces, arising from trajectory perturbations, decrease as the CNS learns to compensate for the perturbations (Milner and Cloutier 1993;
Thoroughman and Shadmehr 1999; Franklin et al. 2003c),
and we assume that they become negligible after learning.
Thus we assume that τ B corresponds to the rigid-body
dynamics (De Wit et al. 1996) described by
τ B = M(q)q̈ + C(q, q̇)q̇ + G(q) ,
(2)
where q̇ and q̈ are the joint velocity and acceleration
vectors, respectively, M(q) is the (position-dependent)
mass matrix, C(q, q̇)q̇ the Coriolis and centrifugal velocity
dependent forces, and G(q) the gravity term. The force due
to gravity can be estimated from static measurements and
the inertia from rapidly accelerating movements. A jointvelocity-dependent term can be added to this equation to
account for joint damping.
2.2 Impedance
If one considers that the neural control of the human arm
(expressed as joint torque τ ) depends on position q, velocity q̇, acceleration q̈, and muscle activation u(q,q̇) : τ =
τ (q, q̇, q̈, u), then the mechanical impedance (defined as
resistance to perturbations at the hand) also depends on
these variables:
δτ = K δq + D δ q̇ + M δ q̈ ,
(3)
where K = NNqτji + NNuτik NNuqjk corresponds to joint stiffness,
D = NNq̇τji + NNuτik NNuq̇jk represents damping, and M = NNq̈τji is
the inertia. Current methods for measuring stiffness and
damping cannot isolate the activation-dependent parts,
i.e., reflex feedback, from muscle intrinsic viscoelastic
properties (Burdet et al. 2000). Thus, measurements normally combine both components, corresponding to the
definitions of K and D above. Damping is difficult to estimate in the multijoint case, particularly as its contribution to the impedance is small. We will assume that it is
roughly proportional to stiffness, corresponding to results
obtained under isometric conditions, i.e., in static postures
(Tsuji et al. 1995). More precisely, the viscosity in joint
space is assumed to be related nonlinearly to joint stiffness and depend on velocity such that
0.42
K.
D=
(q̇T q̇ + 1)
(4)
This gives relatively higher damping at the start and end
of movements when the velocity is low.
How can stiffness be modeled? We first assume, in
accordance with experimental results, that (in joint space)
stiffness K does not depend explicitly on position or velocity. In a stable static interaction, joint stiffness is linearly
correlated (Gomi and Osu 1998; Perreault et al. 2001) with
torque magnitude |τ | = (|τ 1 |, |τ 2 |). The results of (Burdet et al. 1999) and (Franklin et al. 2003b) suggest that a
similar linear relation holds during motion. Therefore, we
assume that joint stiffness Kq (|τ |) depends linearly on the
magnitude of the torque |τ | produced at the joints, which
is computed from (1). This means that with our model,
measurement of stiffness in static positions is sufficient to
predict stiffness during motion performed during interaction with a dynamic environment. From (1), the stiffness
geometry will depend on the force exerted on the hand by
the environment, on the torque necessary to move the arm
and on the arm geometry.
Finally, to account for the increase of stiffness observed (after learning) in unstable interactions (Burdet
et al. 2001), we assume an additional increase of stiffness
Ki ≥ 0, represented in Cartesian space, which is independent of torque and opposes the environment instability. In
summary, joint stiffness after learning is expressed as
K = Kq (|τ FF |) + JT Ki J.
(5)
Our recent results (Osu et al. 2003; Franklin et al. 2003c)
suggest that force and impedance are controlled using
two separate processes corresponding to reciprocal activation of agonist–antagonist muscle groups and their
coactivation to succeed in unstable tasks such as carving. In this view, the torque-dependent stiffness term
Kq (|τ FF |) corresponds to the reciprocal activation process
and JT Ki J to coactivation.
370
Fig. 1. Scheme of arm control model.
The feedforward τ FF corresponds to
the learned force and feedback τ FB
to the muscle elastic property
(including muscle material properties
and reflex feedback)
3 Simulations and results
3.1 Static stiffness and dependence on force
The above model is valid for movements of the arm in
the three-dimensional space. However, the simulations
of this paper are restricted to horizontal two-joint arm
movements for which we can compare the results with
experimental data. Torque-dependent joint stiffness Kq is
modeled using the mean linear relation for five adult subjects found by Gomi and Osu (1998):
10.8 + 3.18 |τ1 | 2.83 + 2.15 |τ2 |
Nm/rad , (8)
Kq =
2.51 + 2.34 |τ2 | 8.67 + 6.18 |τ2 |
Fig. 2. Workspace of simulated movement tasks. The grey arrow represents transverse movement from (−0.2, 0.45) to (0.2, 0.45) m and
the black arrow represents longitudinal movement from (0, 0.3) to (0,
0.55) m. Cartesian position coordinates are relative to the shoulder
2.3 Computing movements in interaction with a known
environment
The above model of force and impedance enables simulation of a movement of the (possibly redundant) arm or
leg along a planned trajectory qp (t) in an environment
characterized by force and impedance. First, the torque
is computed using (1) and (2), then impedance with (5)
and (4). Impedance is used to compute the effect of novel
dynamics or unexpected disturbances △τ . The interaction
dynamics are described by
−J(q)T FE + τ B + △τ = τ = τ FF + τ FB ,
(6)
where τ FF corresponds to a feedforward estimate of the
interaction force, which has been learned, and the feedback component
τ FB = K(qp − q) + D(q̇p − q̇) ,
(7)
corresponds to the viscoelastic properties of the arm
(Mussa-Ivaldi et al. 1985; Bennett et al. 1992; Bennett
1993; Milner 1993; Gomi and Kawato 1997) and produces
a restoring force toward the planned trajectory (Fig. 1).
The movement kinematics are obtained by numerical integration from (6).
where subscript “1” stands for shoulder and “2” for elbow
(Fig. 2). This estimate comprises both muscle elasticity
and reflex feedback. Let the shoulder joint be the origin of
the workspace coordinates (x, y)T in the horizontal plane,
with x and y expressed in meters. Using (5) with τ FF =
FE ≡ 0, Ki ≡ 0, static hand stiffness values were computed
at five locations (Fig. 3a): (−0.2, 0.45), (−0.13, 0.45), (0,
0.45), (0.13, 0.45), and (0.2, 0.45) m. To visualize the elastic restoring force corresponding to a unit displacement of
e
,e∈
the hand, we plotted stiffness ellipses, defined by {Kx |e|
2
ℜ }. In the nonredundant case of the present simulations,
Kx can be computed from (6) as follows:
dJT
Kx = J−T K −
F J−1 ,
(9)
dq
which stems from the following derivation:
Nτi
Nxk
dJT
T NFi
K≡
F
=J
+
Nqj
N xk
Nqj
dq
dJT
F.
≡ J T Kx J +
dq
(10)
The principal axes of the ellipse correspond to the singular
values of the stiffness matrix Kx . The static ellipses were
elongated with an orientation approximately aligned with
the radial axis from the shoulder joint (Flash and MussaIvaldi 1990). Comparison with measured stiffness (Gomi
and Kawato 1997) shows a close match in the size, shape,
and orientation of the hand stiffness ellipses at similar postures. Note that the ellipses were slightly more elongated
in the model simulation than in the data, as they correspond to different “subjects”. The parameters used in (8)
are the mean parameter values of several subjects, not the
specific parameter values of the subject whose data are
being compared.
371
A
B
movement
posture
model
0.1 m
experiment
Fig. 3a, b. Stiffness ellipses for transverse movements
and postures. Static stiffness (a) and dynamic stiffness
(b) predicted by the model are compared with that
measured in Gomi and Kawato (1997) (reproduced
with permission). Start and end positions as well as
duration of movement are similar in both model and
measured data (Sect. 3.2)
100 N/m
3
4
3
2
A
5
4
1
B
2
5
1
200 N/m
8
6
7
6
8
7
The stiffness dependence on endpoint force was examined for two postures, for different magnitudes and directions of endpoint force (Fig. 4). The force magnitudes were
5, 10, 15, and 20 N and the eight directions span 360◦
at equal intervals of 45◦ . At both locations, the stiffness
ellipse enlarged as the force was increased. The shape and
orientation remained unchanged for a given direction but
varied as the direction changed. When the endpoint force
produced by the arm was in direction 3 or 4, the ellipse
became increasingly narrow as the force increased and had
a significantly different shape from that due to an endpoint force in the opposite direction (7 or 8, respectively).
This corresponds to the features found in the experimental
results of Gomi and Osu (1998). The above results show
that the model is able to predict stiffness geometry well at
static positions.
Fig. 4a, b. Predicted postural endpoint stiffness for
different endpoint force magnitudes and directions
at (0, 0.35) m (a) and (0, 0.45) m (b) relative to the
shoulder joint. The endpoint force generated by the
arm has magnitudes of 5, 10, 15, and 20 N
increasing outwards in eight directions: (−1, 0),
(−1, −1), (0, −1), (1, −1), (1, 0), (1, 1), (0, 1), and
(−1, 1), corresponding to the indices 1–8,
respectively. The center ellipse is the stiffness when
the endpoint force is zero
Table 1. Anthropometrical data for arm segments
Upper arm
Forearm
Mass Length Center of mass
(kg) (m)
from proximal
joint (m)
Mass moment
of inertia
(kg m2 )
1.93
1.52
0.0141
0.0188
0.31
0.34
0.165
0.19
We simulated the experiments of Gomi and Kawato
(1997), who studied horizontal movements at shoulder
height with the hand supported such that the influence
of gravity could be neglected. We chose the transverse
movement from (−0.2, 0.45) to (0.2, 0.45) m and the longitudinal movement from (0, 0.55) to (0, 0.3) m, similar to
the experimental movements. We assumed that the hand
followed a minimal-jerk planned trajectory in Cartesian
space (Flash and Hogan 1985):
3.2 Dynamic stiffness
x (t) = A (6tn5 − 15tn4 + 10tn3 ), tn = t/T ,
To simulate the motion dynamics, the arm is modeled as
a two-link rigid mechanical structure with anthropometrical data for the segments shown in Table 1.
where x is the tangential displacement, A the movement amplitude, t the time, and T = 1s the duration of
movement. The planned trajectory in Cartesian space is
(11)
372
B
A
posture
movement
experiment
model
100 [N/m]
100 [N/m]
0.1 [m]
0.1 [m]
Fig. 5a, b. Stiffness ellipses for longitudinal
movements and postures. a Simulated dynamic
stiffness during outward and inward longitudinal
movements (solid ellipses) and static stiffness at
corresponding positions lying along the trajectory
(dotted ellipses). Directions of movement are
denoted by the arrows. b Comparison of simulated
stiffness and stiffness measured by Gomi and
Kawato (1997) for inward longitudinal movement
(reproduced with permission). Start and end
positions, as well as duration of movement, are
similar in both model and measured data (Sect. 3.2)
x(t) = x0 + (0, x )T
T
x(t) = x0 + (x , 0)
for longitudinal movement in y
for transverse movement in x ,
(12)
where x0 is the start position. Joint angles q = (q1 , q2 )T
were then obtained from Cartesian position x = (x1 , x2 )T
via an inverse kinematics transformation (De Wit et al.
1996). The rigid body dynamics τ B were computed along
the planned trajectory using (2). The external force FE
acting on the hand is given by the dynamics of the haptic
interface used in (Gomi and Kawato 1997; Burdet et al.
1999, 2001; Franklin et al. 2003c), with parameters identified as
FE = ME ẍ + Dd ẋ + tanh(200 Ds ẋ) ,
(13)
where
1.516 0
Ns2 /m,
ME =
0 1.404
10.247 0
Dd =
Ns/m,
0 7.592
0.102 0
Ds =
Ns/m,
0 0.356
where ẍ and ẋ represent Cartesian acceleration and velocity, respectively.
To show the effect of movement and the dynamics of
the haptic interface, we computed stiffness ellipses during
movement and compared them with the corresponding
static ellipses at the same hand positions (Figs. 3 and 5).
Snapshots of the stiffness ellipses were taken at regular
temporal intervals of 100 ms. For both transverse and longitudinal movements, stiffness was higher as compared to
postural stiffness, since joint torque was larger in magnitude because of the greater muscle force necessary to move
the limb segments. In the transverse movement, there was
a large generalized increase of stiffness, similar to what
was also observed in measured movement data (Gomi
and Kawato 1997). In the longitudinal movement toward
the body, the increase in stiffness was slight and mainly
in the direction of movement. As shown in Fig. 5b, the
size, shape, and orientation of stiffness ellipses again correspond well to experimental data from similar movements
(Gomi and Kawato 1997). The middle column of Fig. 5a
shows the model prediction for a movement away from
the body (for which no experimental data have yet been
published).
To visualize how stiffness magnitude and geometry vary
with movement speed, stiffness ellipses were plotted for
longitudinal and transverse movements at different speeds
(Fig. 6). In contrast to Fig. 6, in which the interaction with
the PFM was considered for comparison with data (Gomi
and Kawato 1997), no external dynamics were considered
during these movements. Movements with time scaling
factors of 2, 1, and 0.5 were compared, corresponding
to durations of 0.5, 1, and 2 s, respectively. Stiffness ellipses are plotted for nine equal time intervals. The start and
end positions for the movements are the same as before.
As we see in Fig. 6, an increase of movement speed, i.e., of
the force to move the limbs, produced an isomorphic stiffness enlargement. The increase in size was most marked
in the acceleration and deceleration phases of the movement. There was no change in the shape and orientation
of stiffness among different movement speeds for either
movement.
3.3 Adaptation to stable and unstable interactions
We now examine the adaptation to a velocity-dependent
field VF, an unstable position-dependent diverging field
373
A
transverse movement
[m/s]
0.8
1
[m/s]
0.4
0.5
0
0.5
1 time [s] 1.5
2
longitudinal movement
hand speed
1.5
0
B
longitudinal
movement
After adaptation, external force in the DF fields will be
zero since the adapted movement is along {x = 0}. Furthermore, we assumed a stiffness increase Ki opposite to the
environmental stiffness. In Fig. 7, it can be observed that
the stiffness was elongated in the direction of instability for
each of the three unstable fields. While this result is consistent with the result of Burdet et al. (2001) for DF{x=0} ,
no published data are available for the other destabilizing force fields yet. In the stable interaction with VF, the
increase in stiffness was approximately along the direction
of the external force, as was also found experimentally
for movements (Franklin et al. 2003b) and static postures
(Gomi and Osu 1998; Perreault et al. 2001). The time at
which the stiffness ellipses were computed was 200 ms after
movement onset.
4 Discussion
0.1 m
100 N/m
C
transverse movement
Fig. 6a–c. Effect of movement speed on impedance. The hand speed
during movement is shown in a. Stiffness is simulated for longitudinal (b) and transverse (c) movements with increasing peak velocities
from light grey to medium grey (2×) to dark grey (4×). The longitudinal movements start at (0,0.3) m and end at (0,0.55) m. Transverse
movements start at (−0.2, 0.45) m and end at (0.2,0.45) m. In contrast
to Fig. 5, the external dynamics were not included in this simulation
DF (Burdet et al. 2001; Franklin et al. 2003b), and two
other similar DFs with different directions of destabilization. To facilitate comparison with published data, we
considered a longitudinal movement from (0, 0.3) to (0,
0.55) m with a duration of 0.6 s.
We considered the end state of adaptation where the
mean trajectory over several trials would be similar to the
planned trajectory. The force (in N) and impedance (in
N/m) were computed using the following:
0 0
13 −18
(14)
v, Ki =
VF : FE = −
0 0
18 13
450 0
450 0
DF{x=0} : FE = −
x, Ki =
0 0
0 0
315 0
315 0
DF{y=x} : FE = −
x, Ki =
0 315
0 315
315 0
315 0
DF{y=−x} : FE = −
x, Ki =
.
0 −315
0 −315
The model introduced in this paper assumes that
impedance depends principally on the force exerted by the
muscles that span the joint and the environmental instability. This corresponds to reciprocal activation of agonist
and antagonist muscles groups and their coactivation, recently postulated (Franklin et al. 2003c) to explain the
control of unstable tasks. A comparison with published
data demonstrated the predictive power of this model and
in turn suggests that impedance of a limb exerting a force
on the environment does not depend on whether the force
is produced to move the arm or to interact with the environment.
Using measurements of stiffness in static interactions
with different levels of force applied in various directions,
it becomes possible to predict stiffness during arbitrary
movements adapted to a known stable or unstable dynamic environment. The simulations were restricted to
two-dimensional horizontal arm movements, corresponding to published data. However, the model is valid for
movements of the (possibly redundant) arm or leg in threedimensional space.
This model was developed assuming that the musculoskeletal system has simple joints and uses a jointbased approach; it does not consider complex muscle
mechanics and geometry. Therefore, we expect that this
model may not be able to reproduce the adaptation to all
environments equally well. In particular, the coupling of
coactivation (i.e., stiffness) and reciprocal activation (i.e.,
force) is probably more complex than modeled here (Perreault et al. 2002). The stiffness dependence on torque
magnitude was assumed to be linear and is expected to be
valid up to at least 30% of the maximal voluntary contraction (Franklin and Milner 2003a).
Many studies have focused on the adaptation that takes
place when movements are repeated in novel dynamics
(Shadmehr and Mussa-Ivaldi 1994; Shadmehr and Holcomb 1997; Conditt and Mussa-Ivaldi 1997; Burdet et al.
2001; Franklin et al. 2003c). The present model can only
predict force and impedance on the first trial (before
adaptation) or after learning. If the environmental interaction is unknown (e.g., a hazardous or inaccessible environment) or if learning transients are required (e.g., for
374
DF{y=x}
VF
DF{x=0}
NF
NF
100 N/m
DF{y=-x}
rehabilitation or human modeling), a learning algorithm
predicting the evolution of force and impedance trial after
trial would be necessary. It is likely that reflexes, muscle elasticity, motor noise, and feedforward commands will have to
be considered to produce the correct interplay of dynamics
and transients. In contrast to such a complex model of the
adaptive controller of the human arm (Burdet et al. 2004),
the very simple model introduced in this paper requires
little computation. It can be used to simulate motion and
easily integrated in the control of haptic interfaces. It may
contribute to developing stable and optimal control for
haptic interfaces and robots working with humans.
Acknowledgements. We thank Mitsuo Kawato for fruitful discussions and the reviewers for their insightful comments.
References
Bennett DJ, Hollerbach JM, Xu Y, Hunter IW (1992) Time-varying of human elbow joint during cyclic voluntary movement.
Exp Brain Res 88(2): 433–442
Bennett DJ (1993) Torques generated at the human elbow joint
in response to constant position errors imposed during voluntary movement. Exp Brain Res 95(3): 488–498
Bicchi A, Rizzini SL, Tonietti G (2001) Compliant design for
intrinsic safety: general issues and preliminary design. In: Proceedings of IEEE/RSJ international conference of intelligent
robots and systems, pp 1864–1869
Burdet E, Osu R, Franklin DW, Milner TE, Kawato M (1999)
Measuring endpoint stiffness during multi-joint arm movements. In: Proceedings of ASME symposium on haptic interfaces and virtual environments for teleoperator systems,
pp 421–428
Burdet E, Osu R, Franklin DW, Yoshioka T, Milner TE, Kawato
M (2000) A method for measuring endpoint stiffness during
multi-joint arm movements. J Biomech 33(12): 1705–1709
Burdet E, Osu R, Franklin DW, Milner TE, Kawato M (2001) The
central nervous system skillfully stabilizes unstable dynamics
by learning optimal impedance. Nature 414: 446–449
Burdet E, Franklin DW, Osu R, Tee KP, Kawato M, Milner TE
(2004) How are internal models of unstable tasks formed? In:
Proceedings of IEEE international conference on engineering
in medicine and biology
Colgate JE and Hogan N (1988) Robust control of dynamically
interacting systems. Int J Control 48: 65–88
Conditt MA, Mussa-Ivaldi FA (1997) The motor system does
not learn the dynamics of the arm by rote memorization of
past experience. J Neurophysiol 78(1): 554–560
Fig. 7. Stiffness adaptation to a velocity-dependent
force field (VF) inducing a stable interaction with the
arm, and three divergent position-dependent force
fields (DF), producing an unstable interaction
compared with null-field (NF). DF{x=0} produces
destabilization along {x = 0}, DF{y=x} along {y = x},
and DF{y=−x} along {y = −x}. The model predicts, for
VF, an increase of stiffness linearly related to the
external force acting on the hand and for the DF fields
an increase of stiffness along the respective direction of
destabilization. Available experimental data (Gomi
and Kawato 1997, Franklin et al. 2003b) for VF and
DF{y=x} are consistent with this prediction
De Wit CC, Siciliano B, Bastin G (1996) Theory of robot control. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York
Flash T, Hogan N (1985) The co-ordination of arm movements:
an experimentally confirmed mathematical model. J Neurosci
5: 1688–1703
Flash T, Mussa-Ivaldi FA (1990) Human arm stiffness characteristics during the maintenance of posture. Exp Brain Res
82(2): 315–326
Franklin DW, Milner TE (2003a) Adaptive control of stiffness
to stabilize hand position with large loads. Exp Brain Res
152(2): 211–220
Franklin DW, Burdet E, Osu R, Kawato M, Milner TE (2003b)
Functional significance of stiffness in adaptation of multijoint
arm movements to stable and unstable dynamics. Exp Brain
Res 151: 145–157
Franklin DW, Osu R, Burdet E, Kawato M, Milner TE (2003c)
Adaptation to stable and unstable dynamics achieved by combined impedance control and inverse dynamics model. J Neurophysiol 90: 3270–3282
Gomi H, Kawato M (1997) Human arm stiffness and equilibrium point trajectory during multi-joint movement. Biol Cybern 76(3): 163–171
Gomi H, Osu R (1998) Task-dependent viscoelasticity of human
multijoint arm and its spatial characteristics for interaction
with environments. J Neurosci 18: 8965–8978
Kawato M (1999) Internal models for motor control and trajecotry planning. Curr Opin Neurobiol 9: 718–727
Lackner JR, Dizio P (1994) Rapid adaptation to Coriolis force
perturbations of arm trajectory. J Neurophysiol 72: 299–313
Milner TE (1993) Dependence of elbow viscoelastic behaviour
on speed and loading in voluntary movements. Exp Brain Res
93(1): 177–180
Milner TE, Cloutier C (1993) Compensation for mechanically
unstable loading in voluntary wrist movement. Exp Brain Res
94: 522–532
Mussa-Ivaldi FA, Hogan N, Bizzi E (1985) Neural, mechanical,
and geometric factors subserving arm posture in humans.
J Neurosci 5(10): 2732–2743
Osu R, Burdet E, Franklin DW, Milner TE, Kawato M (2003)
Different mechanisms involved in adaptation to stable and
unstable dynamics. J Neurophysiol 90: 3255–3269
Perreault EJ, Kirsch RF, Crago PE (2001) Effects of voluntary
force generation on the elastic components of endpoint stiffness. Exp Brain Res 141(3): 312–323
Perreault EJ, Kirsch RF, Crago PE (2002) Voluntary control of
static endpoint stiffness during force regulation tasks. J Neurophysiol 87(6): 2808–2816
Rancourt D, Hogan N (2001) Dynamics of pushing. J Mot Behav 33(4): 351–362
375
Schmidt RA, Zelaznik H, Hawkins B, Frank JS, Quinn JT (1979)
Motor output variability: a theory for the accuracy of rapid
motor acts. Psychol Rev 47: 415–451
Shadmehr R, Mussa-Ivaldi FA (1994) Adaptive representation
of dynamics during learning of motor tasks. J Neurosci 14(5):
3208–3224
Shadmehr R, Holcomb HH (1997) Neural correlates of motor
memory consolidation. Science 277: 821–825
Slifkin AB, Newell KM (1999) Noise, information transmission,
and force variability. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform
25(3): 837–851
Surgical robots (2004) http://www.computermotion.com/
productsandsolutions/products/zeus/index.
cfm;http://www.intuitivesurgical.com/products/da vinci.html
Thoroughman KA, Shadmehr R (1999) Electromyographic correlates of learning an internal model of reaching movements.
J Neurosci 19(19): 8573–8588
Tsuji T, Morasso PG, Goto K, Ito K (1995) Human hand impedance characteristics during maintained posture. Biol Cyber
72(6): 475–485
Zhang H, Burdet E, Hutmacher DW, Poo AN, Bellouard Y, Clavel R, Sidler T (2002) Robotic micro-assembly of scaffold/cell
constructs with a shape memory alloy gripper. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on robotics and
automation, pp 1483–1488