Comprehensive Physiology Wiley Online Library
For Librarians For Authors Editors About

Biomechanical Insights into Neural Control of Movement

Ronald F. Zernicke, Judith L. Smith

10.1002/cphy.cp120108

Source: Supplement 29: Handbook of Physiology, Exercise: Regulation and Integration of Multiple Systems

Originally published: 1996

Published online: January 2011

Full Article on Wiley Online Library



Abstract

The sections in this article are:

1 Analytical Techniques and Terms
1.1 Biomechanics Terminology
1.2 Dynamics Variables
1.3 Single vs. Multiple Degrees of Freedom
1.4 Free‐Body Diagram
1.5 Dynamics Techniques
2 Insights from Inverse Dynamics
2.1 Equations of Motion
2.2 Anthropometric Data
2.3 Predictions Using an Inverse Dynamics Model
3 Control of Different Locomotion Forms
3.1 Swing‐Phase Dynamics
3.2 Stance‐Phase Dynamics
3.3 Insights for Neural Control of Locomotion
4 Role of Dynamics in the Control of Arm Movements
4.1 Limb Postural Dynamics
4.2 Intersegmental Dynamics Change with Practice
5 Changes in Limb Dynamics During Development
5.1 Spontaneous Kicking Behaviors
5.2 Acquisition of Reaching
6 Concluding Remarks
Figure 1. Figure 1.

Nonintuitive relations between torque and kinematics. Data are from a subject pointing forward, moving the hand in the sagittal plane to a target at shoulder level. The joint motions required were shoulder flexion (upward angle trace) and elbow extension (downward angle trace). While these opposite motions occurred, agonists for this action were shoulder flexors (e.g., anterior deltoid) and elbow flexors (e.g., biceps brachii), with shoulder and elbow joint torques that both had increased flexor influences.

Adapted from Fig. 3 of Soechting and Flanders 184
Figure 2. Figure 2.

Interpretive and free‐body diagrams of a model of an infant's upper extremity. The upper diagram shows the limb positioned in an inertial (x‐y‐z) coordinate system. A positive torque is defined (M). The upper extremity is modeled as three interconnected rigid segments (S1 hand, S2 forearm, and S3 upper arm) with frictionless joints (J1 wrist, J2 elbow, and J3 shoulder). At each instant in time during a reach, a moving local plane (P) is calculated so that the plane contains the x‐y‐z coordinates of each of the three joint centers (J1, J2, J3). The planar torques at the wrist, elbow, and shoulder are calculated with respect to the respective joint axes (Z1', Z2', Z3') that pass through each joint center and are perpendicular to the moving local plane (P). In the lower portion of the figure is a free‐body diagram of the upper extremity. Depicted are forces related to the hand, forearm, and upper arm segment weights (W1, W2, W3) acting at their respective center of mass, and the wrist, elbow, and shoulder joint reaction forces (F1, F2, F3) and torques (M1, M2, M3).

Adapted from Fig. 1 of Zernicke and Schneider 214
Figure 3. Figure 3.

Anatomical drawing of the cat hindlimb with a schematic of a force platform beneath it. E‐shaped tendon transducers are shown on the lateral gastrocnemius (LG) and tibialis anterior (TA) tendons. FR is the resultant ground reaction force vector acting on the plantar surface of the paw. Each force platform contains two piezoelectric transducers (TR). Digit (θd), tarsal (θt), and shank (θS) segment angles are calculated from the right horizontal. Ma is the muscle torque acting about the ankle joint.

Redrawn from Fig. 1(a) of Fowler et al. 53
Figure 4. Figure 4.

Hindlimb coordination for the paw shake. The response is tested with the spinalized cat held vertically; tape is wrapped around the paw (A). Positions at the start of a cycle (A1, peak ankle extension) and mid‐cycle (A2, peak ankle flexion) are shown. Hindlimb segments (thigh, leg, paw) are outlined; each joint (hip, knee, ankle) is marked by a dot. In B, EMG records of four cycles are from an ankle extensor (LG) and flexor (TA); knee extensor (VL) and hip extensor‐knee flexor (BF). Kinematics for four steady‐state cycles are shown in C; 50 ms intervals mark the abscissa. An angle‐angle plot in D illustrates knee‐ankle coordination for steady‐state cycles. Each cycle begins at peak ankle extension (a) and proceeds in a counterclockwise direction. First the knee extends and ankle flexes. Peak knee extension (b) precedes peak ankle flexion. Next, the knee flexes and later the ankle extends (c). Dots on the curve mark time intervals of 5 ms. Bars indicate timing of EMG bursts for LG and BF (stippled), VL (shaded), and TA (unshaded).

Adapted from Figs. 2 and 3 of Smith and Zernicke 182
Figure 5. Figure 5.

Torque components during a typical paw‐shake cycle. The net, muscle, and motion‐dependent torques are shown for the ankle (top) and knee (bottom) joints. The gravitational torque was negligible at both joints and is not illustrated. At the ankle, the main motion‐related torques (leg angular acceleration and knee linear acceleration) counterbalance each other, and the muscle torque dominated the net torque. Positive values represent flexor torques. At the knee, paw angular acceleration (the main inertial torque) is counterbalanced by muscle torque, and net torque is negligible. Positive values represent extensor torques. Bars show the timing of EMG bursts for extensor and flexor muscles at the ankle and knee. Records are aligned by cycle time; vertical lines mark kinematic events.

Adapted from Figs. 5A and 7A of Hoy et al. 102
Figure 6. Figure 6.

Disruption of knee extensor activity during paw‐shake responses elicited under two conditions. The EMG record in A shows a paw‐shake response with knee and ankle joint immobilized by a plaster cast, while the record in B shows a response with a flexible piece of lead (46 g) secured to the paw (B1) by self‐adhesive, elastic tape (B2). Under these conditions, the knee extensor (VL) activity was disrupted, but burst durations of ankle flexor (TA) and extensor (LG) muscles and their reciprocal activity were not perturbed.

Adapted from Fig. 6 of Smith and Zernicke 182
Figure 7. Figure 7.

Swing‐phase kinematics and kinetics of the human knee joint for walking (1.67 m · s−1) and running (4.16 m · s1). At the top of each panel, the position of the leg is shown at various stages of swing, from toe‐off to heel contact. Upper plots show the angular displacement (solid line) and velocity (dashed line) for the knee joint. Middle plots illustrate the NET torque at the knee, and its three main components: NET = gravity (GRA) + muscle (MUS) + summed motion‐dependent torque (MDT). Positive values represent flexor torques; negative values represent extensor torques. Data are normalized to the percentage of swing, and torque data are normalized to subject mass (Nm/kg).

Unpublished data from Zernicke et al. 215
Figure 8. Figure 8.

Angular displacements and EMG for three speeds (human). Displacement data are normalized to percentage of step cycle, 0% = heel strike (stance onset) and 100% = toe‐off (swing onset). Stance is indicated by a bar at the top of each record. GM, gluteus maximus (hip extensor); RF, rectus femoris (hip flexor, knee extensor; see text for explanation of arrows); VL, vastus lateralis (knee extensor); St‐Sm, semitendinosus–semimembranous (hip extensor, knee flexor); LG, lateral gastrocnemius (knee flexor, ankle extensor); TA, tibialis anterior (ankle flexor).

Adapted from Fig. 11 of Nilsson et al. 138
Figure 9. Figure 9.

Two forms of walking for the cat. The cat's position at paw‐off (onset of swing) is illustrated for forward (FWD) walking, and the cat's position at paw contact (onset of stance) is shown for backward (BWD) walking.

Adapted from Fig. 1 of Smith et al. 178.] Typical EMG records and angular displacement for the hip, knee, and ankle are also illustrated for both forms of walking. ABF, anterior biceps femoris (hip extensor); VL, vastus lateralis (knee extensor); LG, lateral gastrocnemius (knee flexor, ankle extensor); ST, (hip extensor, knee flexor); TA, ankle flexor. Arrows at the top mark paw‐off (up arrow) and paw contact (down arrow). [Adapted from Fig. 1 of Perell et al. 142
Figure 10. Figure 10.

Average swing‐phase kinetics at a cat knee joint for several forward (FWD) and backward (BWD) steps at 0.6 m · s−1. Positive values represent extensor torques, and negative values represent flexor torques; the dashed horizontal line indicates zero torque. Dotted vertical lines indicate the reversal from flexion to extension (F–E1) at the knee joint. Torque components are: net torque (NET), gravitational torque (GRA), sum of the motion‐dependent (MDT), and the muscle (MUS).

Adapted from Fig. 2 of Perell et al. 146
Figure 11. Figure 11.

Average swing‐phase kinetics for the cat knee joint for several trot and gallop steps at 2.25 m · s−1. Vertical line marks the F–E1 transition. Torque components are: net torque (NET), gravitational torque (GRA), sum of motion dependent (MDT), and the muscle (MUS); here, motion‐dependent torque components include leg angular acceleration (LAA) and hip linear acceleration (HLA). Positive values represent extensor torques, and negative values represent flexor torques. Time marks indicate 30 ms intervals.

Adapted from Fig. 9 of Smith et al. 179
Figure 12. Figure 12.

Rectified‐averaged EMG records from the semitendinosus (ST) for two speeds of walking, trotting, and galloping of two cats (A and B). The time‐averaged records were triggered from the onset of the flexor‐related burst at paw‐off (STpo), marked by vertical lines. A total of 62 steps were averaged for cat A and 64 steps for cat B. Scale bars: horizontal, 80 ms; vertical, 1.0 mV for cat A and 0.5 mV for cat B.

Taken from Fig. 2 of Smith et al. 179 with publisher's permission
Figure 13. Figure 13.

Averaged‐rectified EMG data of four biarticular muscles for several forward (A) and backward (B) treadmill steps (cat). Muscles are: medial and anterior sartorius (SAm, SAa), rectus femoris (RF), and the semitendinosus (ST). EMG data were averaged at paw‐off (arrow). Asterisks (*) indicate paw contact. With calibration settings in B taken as 1, settings in A are 1.25 for SAm, 1.5 for SAa, 2.25 for RF, and 2.75 for ST.

Adapted from Fig. 3 of Pratt et al. 154
Figure 14. Figure 14.

Kinematics and muscle torque data for the normalized step cycle of two walking forms. Figurines at the top depict both behaviors. Angular displacement plots are redrawn from Vilensky et al. 199. All data are normalized to percentage of step cycle, starting at the onset of stance with heel contact (HC) for forward walking and toe contact (TC) for backward walking. Swing onset is marked by a vertical line at toe‐off (TO) for forward walking and heel‐off (HO) for backward walking. Stance and swing onsets are also indicated for the contralateral (c) leg. Kinetic data, normalized to body mass (N · m/kg), are redrawn from Winter et al. 204. Positive torque values indicate extensor muscle torques (EXT); dotted lines represent the coefficient of variation for the torque data.
Figure 15. Figure 15.

Kinematics of the cat's hindlimb for up‐ and down‐slope walking; slope at a 33% grade. Drawings above the graphs illustrate the cat's posture at contact for the left hind paw. The two shadowed figures show the cat's posture at the same instance for level walking. Within the graphs, the dashed lines represent the standard deviation of the angular displacement data for the knee joint. Data are graphed from the onset of swing and normalized to percentage of cycle. Vertical lines indicate the onset of stance at paw contact.

Unpublished data from Smith et al. 176 and Smith and Carlson‐Kuhta 178
Figure 16. Figure 16.

Stance‐phase kinetics for walking in human and cat. The human leg (A) and cat hindlimb (C; joints are labeled: H, hip; K, knee; A, ankle; MPT, metatarsophalangeal) are illustrated for stance, beginning with heel contact (HC) and ending with toe‐off (TO) in A and beginning with paw contact (PC) and ending with paw‐off (PC) in C. In B and D, vertical (V) and horizontal (H) ground reaction force components are illustrated. Negative components for H are braking and positive are propulsive forces.

Force data in B are expressed in percentage of body weight and redrawn from Inman 104, and force data in D are absolute values (Newton, N) for a 49 N cat and redrawn from Fowler et al. 53
Figure 17. Figure 17.

Muscle (MUS) torques for the hip, knee, and ankle joints for the cat hindlimb during stance of forward (A) and backward (B) treadmill walking. Mean (solid line) and standard deviations (dashed lines) are data from four steps of one cat. For all plots, extensor torques are positive, and flexor torques are negative values.

Adapted from Fig. 7 of Perell et al. 146
Figure 18. Figure 18.

The average muscle torque at the ankle and standard deviation curves calculated from the stance phase of three step cycles from walking cats. Lateral gastrocnemius (LG) and medial gastrocnemius (MG) muscle torques were calculated from one of these step cycles. Plantaris (PLT) and soleus (SOL) moments were calculated from two steps cycles from another cat. With these conditions in mind, the data demonstrate how each ankle extensor muscle contributes to a muscle torque of this magnitude during stance.

Adapted from Fig. 7 of Fowler et al. 53
Figure 19. Figure 19.

A planar, three‐segment model of the arm (A). The directional property of the effective inertial behavior of the upper limb's end‐point is represented as an ellipse (B). Force vectors required to accelerate the end‐point are shown as arrows, and the vector from the head of the arrow to the origin of the coordinate frame represents the corresponding acceleration. Changes in the effective end‐point inertia of the limb that are achieved by changing the limb configuration (while the end‐point remains stationary) are shown as ellipses C, D, and E.

Adapted from Fig. 11 of Hogan et al. 95
Figure 20. Figure 20.

A frontal (left side) and lateral view (right side) of experimental set‐up and subject position. Numbers denote the following: (1) circular black‐metal plate connected by a stem to a wooden‐dowel handle that subjects grasped; (2) light beams (photoelectric cells plus infrared LEDs) attached to the Plexiglas sheet with black arrows indicating the targets' positions; (3) T‐shaped barrier that subjects circumnavigated; (4) suspended, clear Plexiglas sheet with center slit; (5) straight‐backed chair; (6) seat belts; and (7) markers attached at the glenohumeral, elbow, wrist, and third metacarpophalangeal joints, and the center of the circular metal plate. Subjects started and ended the movement with the circular plate held steady in the lower light beam. The upper light beam only had to be interrupted by the metal plate as subjects reversed their upward motion to begin the downward phase of the task.

Adapted from Fig. 1 of Schneider and Zernicke 167
Figure 21. Figure 21.

Exemplar hand paths for the upward phase, with acceleration vectors (sagittal plane) for a before‐practice (A) and an after‐practice movement (B). The “before‐practice” trial was the slowest time, although subjects were attempting to go “as fast as possible.” The movement time for each of the trials was the same, as subjects—after practicing the task—repeated the movement at the less than maximal speed. The hand path is the continuous curved line, whereas at successive and equal points in time, the linear acceleration vectors (denoting magnitude and direction) are shown as straight lines originating from the hand path. To scale the dimensions of the acceleration vectors to the dimensions of the hand path, the magnitudes of the acceleration vectors were multiplied by 0.005.

Taken from Fig. 4 of Schneider and Zernicke 168, with publisher's permission
Figure 22. Figure 22.

Shoulder‐joint torques for a before‐practice (A) and after‐practice (B) movement during the reversal in the upper target. Positive torques tend to cause shoulder extension, and negative torques tend to cause shoulder flexion (lifting the arm). There is a difference of more than twofold in the ordinates of A and B. The torque components illustrated are: NET, net joint torque; MUS, muscle torque; GRA, gravitational torque; UAA, inertial torque related to upper arm angular acceleration.

Taken from Fig. 4 of Zernicke and Schneider 214, with publisher's permission
Figure 23. Figure 23.

Hand paths, dynamics, and EMG for arm movements in two directions for a control (A) and deafferentated (B) subject. See text for description of the template‐tracing task. Ensemble averages for joint angles (top), elbow joint torque components (middle), and EMG records (bottom) are illustrated for movements made along the 0‐degree template (left) and the 125‐degree template (right). Torque components include an interaction torque (Inter; same as the motion‐dependent torque of equation 1), a generalized muscle torque (Mus; same as the generalized muscle torque of equation 1), and a self‐torque [Self = (− I · α)]; see Sainburg et al. 162 for a comparison of the self‐torque and the net joint torque in equation 1. Data for each record are averaged across five trials and aligned to the zero cross (abscissa) in elbow joint flexor acceleration. Shading highlights the interval of flexor acceleration, encompassing the hand‐path reversal.

Adapted from Figs. 7 and 8 of Sainburg et al. 162
Figure 24. Figure 24.

Shoulder joint torques for representative reaches at week 17 (A) and week 51 (B). Absolute times within a 14 s epoch are given; the two reaches occurred at 5.5 s (A) and 2–3 s (B). Positive torques tend to cause shoulder extension, and negative torques tend to produce shoulder flexion. The torque components are: NET, net joint torque; MUS, generalized muscle torque; GRA, gravitational torque; MDT, sum of all motion‐dependent torques. Torques are normalized to infant's body weight (N) at the different ages.

Adapted from Fig. 9 of Zernicke and Schneider 214
Figure 25. Figure 25.

Hand trajectories of all analyzable trials at reach onset (top record of each panel), onset plus 1 week (middle record), onset plus 2 weeks, (bottom record) during which the “active infant” (Nathan) and the “quiet infant” (Justin) contacted the toy (black dot). Only the trajectory of the hand contacting the toy is illustrated. Your perspective is from a top view (as though you were directly above each infant, looking down on his head as he faced the toy directly in front of him). Trajectories were normalized to the space‐time coordinates of the toy contact and are plotted for the last 3 s prior to hand‐toy contact.

Adapted from Figs. 15 and 22 of Thelen et al. 188


Figure 1.

Nonintuitive relations between torque and kinematics. Data are from a subject pointing forward, moving the hand in the sagittal plane to a target at shoulder level. The joint motions required were shoulder flexion (upward angle trace) and elbow extension (downward angle trace). While these opposite motions occurred, agonists for this action were shoulder flexors (e.g., anterior deltoid) and elbow flexors (e.g., biceps brachii), with shoulder and elbow joint torques that both had increased flexor influences.

Adapted from Fig. 3 of Soechting and Flanders 184


Figure 2.

Interpretive and free‐body diagrams of a model of an infant's upper extremity. The upper diagram shows the limb positioned in an inertial (x‐y‐z) coordinate system. A positive torque is defined (M). The upper extremity is modeled as three interconnected rigid segments (S1 hand, S2 forearm, and S3 upper arm) with frictionless joints (J1 wrist, J2 elbow, and J3 shoulder). At each instant in time during a reach, a moving local plane (P) is calculated so that the plane contains the x‐y‐z coordinates of each of the three joint centers (J1, J2, J3). The planar torques at the wrist, elbow, and shoulder are calculated with respect to the respective joint axes (Z1', Z2', Z3') that pass through each joint center and are perpendicular to the moving local plane (P). In the lower portion of the figure is a free‐body diagram of the upper extremity. Depicted are forces related to the hand, forearm, and upper arm segment weights (W1, W2, W3) acting at their respective center of mass, and the wrist, elbow, and shoulder joint reaction forces (F1, F2, F3) and torques (M1, M2, M3).

Adapted from Fig. 1 of Zernicke and Schneider 214


Figure 3.

Anatomical drawing of the cat hindlimb with a schematic of a force platform beneath it. E‐shaped tendon transducers are shown on the lateral gastrocnemius (LG) and tibialis anterior (TA) tendons. FR is the resultant ground reaction force vector acting on the plantar surface of the paw. Each force platform contains two piezoelectric transducers (TR). Digit (θd), tarsal (θt), and shank (θS) segment angles are calculated from the right horizontal. Ma is the muscle torque acting about the ankle joint.

Redrawn from Fig. 1(a) of Fowler et al. 53


Figure 4.

Hindlimb coordination for the paw shake. The response is tested with the spinalized cat held vertically; tape is wrapped around the paw (A). Positions at the start of a cycle (A1, peak ankle extension) and mid‐cycle (A2, peak ankle flexion) are shown. Hindlimb segments (thigh, leg, paw) are outlined; each joint (hip, knee, ankle) is marked by a dot. In B, EMG records of four cycles are from an ankle extensor (LG) and flexor (TA); knee extensor (VL) and hip extensor‐knee flexor (BF). Kinematics for four steady‐state cycles are shown in C; 50 ms intervals mark the abscissa. An angle‐angle plot in D illustrates knee‐ankle coordination for steady‐state cycles. Each cycle begins at peak ankle extension (a) and proceeds in a counterclockwise direction. First the knee extends and ankle flexes. Peak knee extension (b) precedes peak ankle flexion. Next, the knee flexes and later the ankle extends (c). Dots on the curve mark time intervals of 5 ms. Bars indicate timing of EMG bursts for LG and BF (stippled), VL (shaded), and TA (unshaded).

Adapted from Figs. 2 and 3 of Smith and Zernicke 182


Figure 5.

Torque components during a typical paw‐shake cycle. The net, muscle, and motion‐dependent torques are shown for the ankle (top) and knee (bottom) joints. The gravitational torque was negligible at both joints and is not illustrated. At the ankle, the main motion‐related torques (leg angular acceleration and knee linear acceleration) counterbalance each other, and the muscle torque dominated the net torque. Positive values represent flexor torques. At the knee, paw angular acceleration (the main inertial torque) is counterbalanced by muscle torque, and net torque is negligible. Positive values represent extensor torques. Bars show the timing of EMG bursts for extensor and flexor muscles at the ankle and knee. Records are aligned by cycle time; vertical lines mark kinematic events.

Adapted from Figs. 5A and 7A of Hoy et al. 102


Figure 6.

Disruption of knee extensor activity during paw‐shake responses elicited under two conditions. The EMG record in A shows a paw‐shake response with knee and ankle joint immobilized by a plaster cast, while the record in B shows a response with a flexible piece of lead (46 g) secured to the paw (B1) by self‐adhesive, elastic tape (B2). Under these conditions, the knee extensor (VL) activity was disrupted, but burst durations of ankle flexor (TA) and extensor (LG) muscles and their reciprocal activity were not perturbed.

Adapted from Fig. 6 of Smith and Zernicke 182


Figure 7.

Swing‐phase kinematics and kinetics of the human knee joint for walking (1.67 m · s−1) and running (4.16 m · s1). At the top of each panel, the position of the leg is shown at various stages of swing, from toe‐off to heel contact. Upper plots show the angular displacement (solid line) and velocity (dashed line) for the knee joint. Middle plots illustrate the NET torque at the knee, and its three main components: NET = gravity (GRA) + muscle (MUS) + summed motion‐dependent torque (MDT). Positive values represent flexor torques; negative values represent extensor torques. Data are normalized to the percentage of swing, and torque data are normalized to subject mass (Nm/kg).

Unpublished data from Zernicke et al. 215


Figure 8.

Angular displacements and EMG for three speeds (human). Displacement data are normalized to percentage of step cycle, 0% = heel strike (stance onset) and 100% = toe‐off (swing onset). Stance is indicated by a bar at the top of each record. GM, gluteus maximus (hip extensor); RF, rectus femoris (hip flexor, knee extensor; see text for explanation of arrows); VL, vastus lateralis (knee extensor); St‐Sm, semitendinosus–semimembranous (hip extensor, knee flexor); LG, lateral gastrocnemius (knee flexor, ankle extensor); TA, tibialis anterior (ankle flexor).

Adapted from Fig. 11 of Nilsson et al. 138


Figure 9.

Two forms of walking for the cat. The cat's position at paw‐off (onset of swing) is illustrated for forward (FWD) walking, and the cat's position at paw contact (onset of stance) is shown for backward (BWD) walking.

Adapted from Fig. 1 of Smith et al. 178.] Typical EMG records and angular displacement for the hip, knee, and ankle are also illustrated for both forms of walking. ABF, anterior biceps femoris (hip extensor); VL, vastus lateralis (knee extensor); LG, lateral gastrocnemius (knee flexor, ankle extensor); ST, (hip extensor, knee flexor); TA, ankle flexor. Arrows at the top mark paw‐off (up arrow) and paw contact (down arrow). [Adapted from Fig. 1 of Perell et al. 142


Figure 10.

Average swing‐phase kinetics at a cat knee joint for several forward (FWD) and backward (BWD) steps at 0.6 m · s−1. Positive values represent extensor torques, and negative values represent flexor torques; the dashed horizontal line indicates zero torque. Dotted vertical lines indicate the reversal from flexion to extension (F–E1) at the knee joint. Torque components are: net torque (NET), gravitational torque (GRA), sum of the motion‐dependent (MDT), and the muscle (MUS).

Adapted from Fig. 2 of Perell et al. 146


Figure 11.

Average swing‐phase kinetics for the cat knee joint for several trot and gallop steps at 2.25 m · s−1. Vertical line marks the F–E1 transition. Torque components are: net torque (NET), gravitational torque (GRA), sum of motion dependent (MDT), and the muscle (MUS); here, motion‐dependent torque components include leg angular acceleration (LAA) and hip linear acceleration (HLA). Positive values represent extensor torques, and negative values represent flexor torques. Time marks indicate 30 ms intervals.

Adapted from Fig. 9 of Smith et al. 179


Figure 12.

Rectified‐averaged EMG records from the semitendinosus (ST) for two speeds of walking, trotting, and galloping of two cats (A and B). The time‐averaged records were triggered from the onset of the flexor‐related burst at paw‐off (STpo), marked by vertical lines. A total of 62 steps were averaged for cat A and 64 steps for cat B. Scale bars: horizontal, 80 ms; vertical, 1.0 mV for cat A and 0.5 mV for cat B.

Taken from Fig. 2 of Smith et al. 179 with publisher's permission


Figure 13.

Averaged‐rectified EMG data of four biarticular muscles for several forward (A) and backward (B) treadmill steps (cat). Muscles are: medial and anterior sartorius (SAm, SAa), rectus femoris (RF), and the semitendinosus (ST). EMG data were averaged at paw‐off (arrow). Asterisks (*) indicate paw contact. With calibration settings in B taken as 1, settings in A are 1.25 for SAm, 1.5 for SAa, 2.25 for RF, and 2.75 for ST.

Adapted from Fig. 3 of Pratt et al. 154


Figure 14.

Kinematics and muscle torque data for the normalized step cycle of two walking forms. Figurines at the top depict both behaviors. Angular displacement plots are redrawn from Vilensky et al. 199. All data are normalized to percentage of step cycle, starting at the onset of stance with heel contact (HC) for forward walking and toe contact (TC) for backward walking. Swing onset is marked by a vertical line at toe‐off (TO) for forward walking and heel‐off (HO) for backward walking. Stance and swing onsets are also indicated for the contralateral (c) leg. Kinetic data, normalized to body mass (N · m/kg), are redrawn from Winter et al. 204. Positive torque values indicate extensor muscle torques (EXT); dotted lines represent the coefficient of variation for the torque data.



Figure 15.

Kinematics of the cat's hindlimb for up‐ and down‐slope walking; slope at a 33% grade. Drawings above the graphs illustrate the cat's posture at contact for the left hind paw. The two shadowed figures show the cat's posture at the same instance for level walking. Within the graphs, the dashed lines represent the standard deviation of the angular displacement data for the knee joint. Data are graphed from the onset of swing and normalized to percentage of cycle. Vertical lines indicate the onset of stance at paw contact.

Unpublished data from Smith et al. 176 and Smith and Carlson‐Kuhta 178


Figure 16.

Stance‐phase kinetics for walking in human and cat. The human leg (A) and cat hindlimb (C; joints are labeled: H, hip; K, knee; A, ankle; MPT, metatarsophalangeal) are illustrated for stance, beginning with heel contact (HC) and ending with toe‐off (TO) in A and beginning with paw contact (PC) and ending with paw‐off (PC) in C. In B and D, vertical (V) and horizontal (H) ground reaction force components are illustrated. Negative components for H are braking and positive are propulsive forces.

Force data in B are expressed in percentage of body weight and redrawn from Inman 104, and force data in D are absolute values (Newton, N) for a 49 N cat and redrawn from Fowler et al. 53


Figure 17.

Muscle (MUS) torques for the hip, knee, and ankle joints for the cat hindlimb during stance of forward (A) and backward (B) treadmill walking. Mean (solid line) and standard deviations (dashed lines) are data from four steps of one cat. For all plots, extensor torques are positive, and flexor torques are negative values.

Adapted from Fig. 7 of Perell et al. 146


Figure 18.

The average muscle torque at the ankle and standard deviation curves calculated from the stance phase of three step cycles from walking cats. Lateral gastrocnemius (LG) and medial gastrocnemius (MG) muscle torques were calculated from one of these step cycles. Plantaris (PLT) and soleus (SOL) moments were calculated from two steps cycles from another cat. With these conditions in mind, the data demonstrate how each ankle extensor muscle contributes to a muscle torque of this magnitude during stance.

Adapted from Fig. 7 of Fowler et al. 53


Figure 19.

A planar, three‐segment model of the arm (A). The directional property of the effective inertial behavior of the upper limb's end‐point is represented as an ellipse (B). Force vectors required to accelerate the end‐point are shown as arrows, and the vector from the head of the arrow to the origin of the coordinate frame represents the corresponding acceleration. Changes in the effective end‐point inertia of the limb that are achieved by changing the limb configuration (while the end‐point remains stationary) are shown as ellipses C, D, and E.

Adapted from Fig. 11 of Hogan et al. 95


Figure 20.

A frontal (left side) and lateral view (right side) of experimental set‐up and subject position. Numbers denote the following: (1) circular black‐metal plate connected by a stem to a wooden‐dowel handle that subjects grasped; (2) light beams (photoelectric cells plus infrared LEDs) attached to the Plexiglas sheet with black arrows indicating the targets' positions; (3) T‐shaped barrier that subjects circumnavigated; (4) suspended, clear Plexiglas sheet with center slit; (5) straight‐backed chair; (6) seat belts; and (7) markers attached at the glenohumeral, elbow, wrist, and third metacarpophalangeal joints, and the center of the circular metal plate. Subjects started and ended the movement with the circular plate held steady in the lower light beam. The upper light beam only had to be interrupted by the metal plate as subjects reversed their upward motion to begin the downward phase of the task.

Adapted from Fig. 1 of Schneider and Zernicke 167


Figure 21.

Exemplar hand paths for the upward phase, with acceleration vectors (sagittal plane) for a before‐practice (A) and an after‐practice movement (B). The “before‐practice” trial was the slowest time, although subjects were attempting to go “as fast as possible.” The movement time for each of the trials was the same, as subjects—after practicing the task—repeated the movement at the less than maximal speed. The hand path is the continuous curved line, whereas at successive and equal points in time, the linear acceleration vectors (denoting magnitude and direction) are shown as straight lines originating from the hand path. To scale the dimensions of the acceleration vectors to the dimensions of the hand path, the magnitudes of the acceleration vectors were multiplied by 0.005.

Taken from Fig. 4 of Schneider and Zernicke 168, with publisher's permission


Figure 22.

Shoulder‐joint torques for a before‐practice (A) and after‐practice (B) movement during the reversal in the upper target. Positive torques tend to cause shoulder extension, and negative torques tend to cause shoulder flexion (lifting the arm). There is a difference of more than twofold in the ordinates of A and B. The torque components illustrated are: NET, net joint torque; MUS, muscle torque; GRA, gravitational torque; UAA, inertial torque related to upper arm angular acceleration.

Taken from Fig. 4 of Zernicke and Schneider 214, with publisher's permission


Figure 23.

Hand paths, dynamics, and EMG for arm movements in two directions for a control (A) and deafferentated (B) subject. See text for description of the template‐tracing task. Ensemble averages for joint angles (top), elbow joint torque components (middle), and EMG records (bottom) are illustrated for movements made along the 0‐degree template (left) and the 125‐degree template (right). Torque components include an interaction torque (Inter; same as the motion‐dependent torque of equation 1), a generalized muscle torque (Mus; same as the generalized muscle torque of equation 1), and a self‐torque [Self = (− I · α)]; see Sainburg et al. 162 for a comparison of the self‐torque and the net joint torque in equation 1. Data for each record are averaged across five trials and aligned to the zero cross (abscissa) in elbow joint flexor acceleration. Shading highlights the interval of flexor acceleration, encompassing the hand‐path reversal.

Adapted from Figs. 7 and 8 of Sainburg et al. 162


Figure 24.

Shoulder joint torques for representative reaches at week 17 (A) and week 51 (B). Absolute times within a 14 s epoch are given; the two reaches occurred at 5.5 s (A) and 2–3 s (B). Positive torques tend to cause shoulder extension, and negative torques tend to produce shoulder flexion. The torque components are: NET, net joint torque; MUS, generalized muscle torque; GRA, gravitational torque; MDT, sum of all motion‐dependent torques. Torques are normalized to infant's body weight (N) at the different ages.

Adapted from Fig. 9 of Zernicke and Schneider 214


Figure 25.

Hand trajectories of all analyzable trials at reach onset (top record of each panel), onset plus 1 week (middle record), onset plus 2 weeks, (bottom record) during which the “active infant” (Nathan) and the “quiet infant” (Justin) contacted the toy (black dot). Only the trajectory of the hand contacting the toy is illustrated. Your perspective is from a top view (as though you were directly above each infant, looking down on his head as he faced the toy directly in front of him). Trajectories were normalized to the space‐time coordinates of the toy contact and are plotted for the last 3 s prior to hand‐toy contact.

Adapted from Figs. 15 and 22 of Thelen et al. 188
References
 1. Abend, W., E. Bizzi, and P. Morasso. Human arm trajectory formation. Brain 105: 331–348, 1982.
 2. Adams, J. A. Historical review and appraisal of research on the learning, retention, and transfer of human motor skills. Psychol. Bull. 101: 41–74, 1987.
 3. Andersson, O., and S. Grillner. Peripheral control of the cat's step cycle I. Phase dependent effects of ramp‐movements of the hip during “fictive locomotion.” Acta Physiol. Scand. 113: 89–101, 1981.
 4. Atkeson, C. G. Learning arm kinematics and dynamics. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 12: 157–183, 1989.
 5. Atkeson, C. G., and J. M. Hollerbach. Kinematic features of unrestrained vertical arm movements. J. Neurosci. 5: 2318–2330, 1985.
 6. Barbeau, H., C. Julien, and S. Rossignol. The effects of clonidine and yohimbine on locomotion and cutaneous reflexes in the adult spinal cat. Brain Res. 437: 83–96, 1987.
 7. Bernstein, N. Studies of the biomechanics of the stroke by means of photo‐registration. Research of the Central Institute of Work: Moscow: N1: 19–79, 1923 (in Russian).
 8. Bernstein, N. Co‐ordination and Regulation of Movements. New York: Pergamon Press, 1967.
 9. Bizzi, E., and W. K. Abend. Control of multijoint movement. In: Comparative Neurobiology, Modes of Communication in the Nervous System, edited by F. Strumwasser and M. Dohen, New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1985, p. 255–277.
 10. Bizzi, E., W. Chappie, and N. Hogan. Mechanical properties of muscles: implications for motor control. Trends Neurosci. 5: 395–398, 1982.
 11. Bizzi, E., F. A. Mussa‐Ivaldi, and S. Giszter. Computations underlying the execution of movement: a biological perspective. Science 253: 287–291, 1991.
 12. Blaszczcyk, J., and G. E. Loeb. Why cats pace on the treadmill. Physiol. Behav. 53: 501–507, 1993.
 13. Bloch, H., and B. I. Bertenthal. Sensory‐Motor Organizations and Development in Infancy and Early Childhood. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1990.
 14. Bobbert, M. F., P. A. Huijing, and G. J. van Ingen Schenau. A model of the human triceps surae muscle‐tendon complex applied to jumping. J. Biomech. 19: 887–898, 1986.
 15. Borelli, G. A. De Motu Animalium. Editio Altera Correctior emendatior, Lugduni Nin Batavis, J. de Vivie, C. Boutesteyn, D. a Gaebuck, and P. Vander AA., 1685 (later edition).
 16. Braune, C. W., and O. Fischer. Ueber den Schwerpunkt des menschlichen Koerpers mit Ruecksicht auf die ausruestung des deutschen Infanteristen. Abhandlungen der Mathematisch‐physikalischen Classe der Koenigl. Saechisschen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften, 15: 561–572, 1889.
 17. Bresler, B., and J. P. Frankel. The forces and moments in the leg during level walking. Trans. Am. Soc. Mech. Eng. (J. Biomech. Eng.) 72: 27–36, 1950.
 18. Buford, J. A., and J. L. Smith. Adaptive control for backward quadrupedal walking. II. Hindlimb muscle synergies. J. Neurophysiol. 64: 756–766, 1990.
 19. Buford, J. A., and J. L. Smith. Adaptive control for backward quadrupedal walking. III. Stumbling corrective responses and cutaneous reflex sensitivity. J. Neurophysiol. 70: 1102–1114, 1993.
 20. Buford, J. A., R. F. Zernicke, and J. L. Smith. Adaptive control for backward quadrupedal walking. I. Posture and hindlimb kinematics. J. Neurophysiol. 64: 745–755, 1990.
 21. Cajori, F. (Ed.) Sir Isaac Newton's Mathematical Principles of Natural Philsophy and His System of the World. (A. Mottee, translation). Berkeley: University of California Press. (originally published, 1729), 1946.
 22. Cavanagh, P. R., and R. Kram. The efficiency of human movement—a statement of the problem. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 17: 304–308, 1985.
 23. Chanaud, C. M., C. A. Pratt, and G. E. Loeb. Functionally complex muscles of the cat hindlimb. V. The role of histochemical fiber type regionalization and mechanical heterogeneity in differential muscle activation. Exp. Brain Res. 85: 300–313, 1991.
 24. Chandler, R. F., C. E. Clauser, J. T. McConville, H. M. Reynolds, and J. W. Young. Investigation of the Inertial Properties of the Human Body. (Technical Report DOT HS‐801 430) Wright‐Patterson Air Force Base: Ohio, 1975.
 25. Chow, C. K., and D. H. Jacobson. Studies of human locomotion via optimal programming. Math. Biosci. 10: 239–306, 1971.
 26. Clauser, C. E., J. T. McConville, and J. W. Young. Weight, Volume and Center of Mass of Segments of the Human Body (AMRL Technical Report) Wright‐Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, 1969.
 27. Contini, R. Preface, Hum. factors 5: 423–425, 1963.
 28. Cooper, S. E., J. H. Martin, and C. Ghez. Differential effects of localized inactivation of deep cerebellar nuclei on reaching in the cat. Soc. Neurosci. Abstr. 19: 1278, 1993.
 29. Crowninshield, R. D. Use of optimization techniques to predict muscle forces. J. Biomech. Eng. 100: 88–92, 1978.
 30. Crowninshield, R. D., and R. A. Brand. A physiologically based criterion of muscle force prediction in locomotion. J. Biomech. 14: 793–801, 1981.
 31. Cruse, H., M. Bruewer, and J. Dean. Control of three‐ and four‐joint arm movement: strategies for a manipulator with redundant degrees of freedom. J. Mot. Behav. 25: 131–139, 1993.
 32. Cunningham, D. M., and G. W. Brown. Two devices for measuring the forces acting on the human body during walking. Proc. Soc. Exp. Stress Analysis 9: 75–90, 1952.
 33. D'Alembert, J. L. Traite de dynamique. Paris: David, 1758.
 34. Davy, D. T., and M. L. Audu. A dynamic optimization technique for predicting muscle forces in the swing phase of gait. J. Biomech. 20: 187–201, 1987.
 35. Dempster, W. T. Free body diagrams as an approach to the mechanics of human posture and motion. In: Biomechanical Studies of the Musculoskeletal System, edited by F. G. Evans. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas, 1961, p. 81–135.
 36. Dempster, W. T. Space Requirements of the Seated Operator: Geometrical, Kinematic and Mechanical Aspects of the Body with Special Reference to the Limbs. (WADC Technical Report No. 55–159). Wright‐Patterson Air Force Base: Ohio, 1955.
 37. Dul, J., G. E. Johnson, R. Shiavi, and M. A. Townsend. Muscular synergism — II. A minimum‐fatigue criterion for load sharing between synergistic muscles. J. Biomech. 17: 675–684, 1984.
 38. Duysens, J., and K. G. Pearson. Inhibition of flexor burst generation by loading ankle extensor muscles in walking cats. Brain Res. 187: 321–332, 1980.
 39. Engberg, I., and A. Lundberg. An electromyographic analysis of muscular activity in the hindlimb of the cat during unrestrained locomotion. Acta Physiol. Scand. 75: 614–630, 1969.
 40. English, A. The functions of the lumbar spine during stepping in the cat. J. Morphol. 165: 55–66, 1980.
 41. English, A. W., and O. Weeks. An anatomical and functional analysis of cat biceps femoris and semitendinosus muscles. J. Morphol. 191: 161–175, 1987.
 42. Evans, F. G. Biomechanical implications of anatomy. In: Selected Topics on Biomechanics, edited by J. M. Cooper. Chicago: Athletic Institute, 1971, p. 3–30.
 43. Feldman, A. G. Once more on the equilibrium‐point hypothesis (A model) for motor control. J. Mot. Behav. 18: 17–54, 1986.
 44. Fenn, W. O. Work against gravity and work due to velocity changes in running. Am. J. Physiol. 93: 433–462, 1930.
 45. Fitch, H. L., B. Tuller, and M. T. Turvey. The Bernstein perspective: III. Tuning of coordinative structures with special reference to perception. In: Human Behavior: An Introduction, edited by J. A. S. Kelso. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1982, p. 271–282.
 46. Flanagan, J. R., D. J. Ostry, and A. G. Feldman. Control of trajectory modifications in target‐directed reaching. J. Mot. Behav. 25: 140–152, 1993.
 47. Flash, T. Organizing principles underlying the formation of hand trajectories. Ph.D. thesis, Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1983.
 48. Flash, T. The control of hand equilibrium trajectories in multi‐joint arm movement. Biol. Cybern. 57: 257–274, 1987.
 49. Flash, T., and E. Hennis. Arm trajectory modification during reaching towards visual target. J. Cognit. Neurosci. 3: 220–230, 1991.
 50. Flash, T., and N. Hogan. Evidence for an optimization strategy in arm trajectory formation. Soc. Neurosci. Abstr. 8: 282, 1982.
 51. Flash, T., and N. Hogan. The coordination of arm movements: an experimentally confirmed mathematical model. J. Neurosci. 5: 1688–1703, 1985.
 52. Forget, R., and Y. Lamarre. Rapid elbow flexion in the absence of proprioceptive and cutaneous feedback. Hum. Neurobiol. 6: 27–37, 1987.
 53. Fowler, E. G., R. J. Gregor, J. A. Hodgson, and R. R. Roy. Relationship between ankle muscle and joint kinetics during the stance phase of locomotion in the cat. J. Biomech. 26: 465–483, 1993.
 54. Fowler, E. G., R. J. Gregor, and R. R. Roy. Differential kinetics of fast and slow ankle extensors during the paws‐shake in the cat. Exp. Neurol. 99: 219–224, 1988.
 55. Fung, Y. C. Biomechanics: Motion, Stress, and Growth. New York: Springer‐Verlag, 1990.
 56. Gelfand, I. M., V. S. Gurfinkel, M. L. Tsetlin, and M. L. Shik. Some problems in the analysis of movements. In: Models of the Structural‐Functional Organization of Certain Biological Systems, edited by I. M. Gelfand, V. S. Gurfinkel, M. L. Tsetlin, and M. L. Shik. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1971.
 57. Ghez, C., J. Gordon, and M. F. Ghilardi. Impairments of reaching movements in patients without proprioception. II. Effects of visual information on accuracy. J. Neurophysiol. (in press).
 58. Ghez, C., and R. Sainburg. Proprioceptive control of inter‐joint coordination. Can. J. Physiol. Pharmacol. (in press).
 59. Gielen, C. C. A. M., K. van den Oosten, and G. ter Gunne. Relation between EMG activation patterns and kinematic properties of aimed arm movements. J. Mot. Behav. 17: 421–442, 1985.
 60. Gordon, J., M. F. Ghilardi, and C. Ghez. Impairments of reaching movements in patients without proprioception. I. Spatial errors. J. Neurophysiol. (in press).
 61. Gordon, J., M. F. Ghilardi, and C. Ghez. Accuracy of planar reaching movement. I. Independence of direction and extent variability. Exp. Brain Res. 99: 97–111, 1994.
 62. Gordon, J., M. F. Ghilardi, S. E. Cooper, and C. Ghez. Accuracy of planar reaching movement. II. Systematic extent errors resulting from inertial anisotropy. Exp. Brain Res. 99: 112–130, 1994.
 63. Goslow, G. E., R. M. Reinking, and D. G. Stuart. The cat step cycle: hind limb joint angles and muscle lengths during unrestrained locomotion. J. Morphol. 141: 1–41, 1973.
 64. Gottlieb, G. L. A computational model of the simplest motor program. J. Mot. Behav. 25: 153–161, 1993.
 65. Gottlieb, G. L., D. M. Corcos, and G. C. Agarwal. Strategies for the control of voluntary movements with one mechanical degree of freedom. Behav. Brain Sci. 12: 189–224, 1990.
 66. Gregor, R. J., P. R. Cavanagh, and M. LaFortune. Knee flexor moments during propulsion in cycling: a creative solution to Lombard's Paradox. J. Biomech. 18: 307–316, 1985.
 67. Gregor, R. J., P. V. Komi, R. C. Browning, and M. A. Jarvinen. Comparison of the triceps surae and residual muscle moments at the ankle during cycling. J. Biomech. 24: 287–297, 1991.
 68. Gregor, R. J., R. R. Roy, W. C. Whiting, R. G. Lovely, J. Hodgson, and V. R. Edgerton. Mechanical output of the cat soleus during treadmill locomotion: In vivo vs. in situ characteristics. J. Biomech. 21: 721–732, 1988.
 69. Grillner, S. Control of locomotion in bipeds, tetrapods, and fish. In: Handbook of Physiology, The Nervous System, Motor Control, edited by V. B. Brooks. Bethesda, MD: Am. Physiol. Soc., 1981, p. 1179–1236.
 70. Grillner, S., and S. Rossignol. On the initiation of the swing phase of locomotion in chronic spinal cat. Brain Res. 146: 269–277, 1978.
 71. Grillner, S., and P. Zangger. On the central generation of locomotion in the low spinal cat. Exp. Brain Res. 34: 241–261, 1979.
 72. Haken, H. Synergetics: An Introduction. Heidelberg: Springer‐Verlag, 1977.
 73. Halbertsma, J. M. The stride cycle of the cat: the modeling of locomotion by computerized analysis of automatic recordings. Acta Physiol. Scand. Suppl. 521: 1–75, 1983.
 74. Hart, T. J., E. M. Cox, M. G. Hoy, J. L. Smith, and R. F. Zernicke. Intralimb kinetics of perturbed paw‐shake response. In: Biomechanics X‐A, edited by B. Jonsson. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Publishers, 1987, p. 471–478.
 75. Hatze, H. A Model for the Computational Determination of Parameter Values of Anthropomorphic Segments. NRIMS Technical Report TWISK 79, Pretoria, South Africa, 1979.
 76. Hatze, H. A mathematical model for the computational determination of parameter values of anthropomorphic segments. J. Biomech. 13: 833–843, 1980.
 77. Hatze, H. A comprehensive model for human motion simulation and its application to the take‐off phase of the long jump. J. Biomech. 14: 135–142, 1981.
 78. Hatze, H. Quantitative analysis, synthesis and optimization of human motion. Hum. Mov. Sci. 3: 5–25, 1984.
 79. Hatze, H. The complete optimization of a human motion. Math. Biosci. 28: 99–135, 1976.
 80. Hatze, H. Was ist Biomechanik (What is biomechanics)? Leibesuebungen Leibeserziehung. 25: 33–34, 1971.
 81. Herzog, W., and T. R. Leonard. Validation of optimization models that estimate the forces exerted by synergistic models. J. Biomech. 24: 31–39, 1991.
 82. Herzog, W., T. R. Leonard, and A. C. S. Guimaraes. Forces in gastrocnemius, soleus, and plantaris tendons of the freely moving cat. J. Biomech. 26: 945–953, 1993.
 83. Hildebrand, M. Analysis of asymmetrical gaits. J. Mammal. 58: 131–156, 1977.
 84. Hildebrand, M. The adaptive significance of tetrapod gait selection. Am. Zool. 20: 255–267, 1980.
 85. Hobart, D. J., D. L. Kelley, and L. S. Bradley. Modifications occurring during acquisition of a novel throwing task. Am. J. Phys. Med. 54: 1–24, 1975.
 86. Hodgson, J. A. The relationship between soleus and gastrocnemius muscle activity in conscious cats: a model for motor unit recruitment. J. Physiol. (Lond.) 337: 553–562, 1983.
 87. Hof, A. L., and J. W. van den Berg. EMG force processing. I. An electrical analogue of the Hill muscle model. J. Biomech. 14: 747–758, 1981.
 88. Hof, A. L., B. A. Geelen, and J. W. van den Berg. Calf muscle moment, work and efficiency in level walking: role of series elasticity. J. Biomech. 16: 523–537, 1983.
 89. Hof, A. L., C. N. A. Pronk, and J. A. van Best. Comparison between EMG to force processing and kinetic analysis for the calf muscle moment in walking and stepping. J. Biomech. 20: 167–178, 1987.
 90. Hoffer, J. A., A. A. Caputi, I. E. Pose, and R. I. Griffiths. Roles of muscle activity and load on the relationship between muscle spindle length and whole muscle length in the freely walking cat. Prog. Brain Res. 80: 75–85, 1989.
 91. Hoffer, J. A., G. E. Loeb, N. Sugano, W. B. Marks, M. J. O'Donovan, and C. A. Pratt. Cat hindlimb motoneurons during locomotion. III. Functional segregation in sartorius. J. Neurophysiol. 57: 554–773, 1987.
 92. von Hofsten, C. Structuring of early reaching movements: a longitudinal study. J. Mot. Behav. 23: 280–292, 1991.
 93. Hogan, N. An organizing principle for a class of voluntary movements. J. Neurosci. 4: 2745–2754, 1984.
 94. Hogan, N. The mechanics of multi‐joint posture and movement control. Biol. Cybern. 52: 315–331, 1985.
 95. Hogan, N., E. Bizzi, F. A. Mussa‐Ivaldi, and T. Flash. Controlling multijoint behavior. Exerc. Sport Sci. Rev. 15: 153–190, 1989.
 96. Hogan, N., and T. Flash. Moving gracefully: quantitative theories of motor coordination. Trends Neurosci. 10: 170–174, 1987.
 97. Hollerbach, J. M. Computers, brains, and the control of movement. Trends Neurosci. 5: 189–192, 1982.
 98. Hollerbach, J. M., and T. Flash. Dynamic interactions between limb segments during planar arm movement. Biol. Cybern. 44: 67–77, 1982.
 99. Hoy, M. G., F. E. Zajac, and M. E. Gordon. A musculoskeletal model of the human lower extremity: the effect of muscle, tendon, and moment arm on the moment‐angle relationship of musculotendon actuators at the hip, knee, and ankle. J. Biomech. 23: 157–169, 1990.
 100. Hoy, M. G., and R. F. Zernicke. Modulation of limb dynamics in the swing phase of locomotion. J. Biomech. 18: 49–60, 1985.
 101. Hoy, M. G., and R. F. Zernicke. The role of intersegmental dynamics during rapid limb oscillations. J. Biomech. 19: 867–877, 1986.
 102. Hoy, M. G., R. F. Zernicke, and J. L. Smith. Contrasting roles of inertial and muscular moments at ankle and knee during paw‐shake response. J. Neurophysiol. 54: 1282–1294, 1985.
 103. van Ingen Schenau, G. J. From rotation to translation: constraints of multi‐joint movements and the unique action of bi‐articular muscles. Hum. Mov. Sci. 8: 301–337, 1989.
 104. Inman, V. T. Human locomotion. Can. Med. Assoc. J. 94: 1047–1054, 1966.
 105. Jayes, A., and R. M. Alexander. Mechanics of locomotion of dogs (Canis familiaris) and sheep (Ovis aries). J. Zool. Lond. 185: 289–308, 1978.
 106. Jensen, R. K. Body segment mass, radius and radius of gyration proportions of children. J. Biomech. 19: 359–368, 1986.
 107. Jensen, J. L., B. D. Ulrich, E. Thelen, K. Schneider, and R. F. Zernicke. Adaptive dynamics of the leg movement patterns of human infants: I. The effects of posture on spontaneous kicking. J. Mot. Behav. 26: 303–312, 1994.
 108. Kelso, J. A. S. (Ed.) Human Behavior: An Introduction. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1982.
 109. Kelso, J. A. S., and J. Clark. The Development of Movement Control and Coordination. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1982.
 110. Kelso, J. A. S., M. Ding, and G. Schoener. Dynamic pattern formation: a primer. In: A Dynamic Systems Approach to Development: Applications, edited by L. B. Smith and E. Thelen, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1993, p. 13–50.
 111. Kelso, J. A. S., B. Tuller, and K. S. Harris. A “dynamic pattern” perspective on the control and coordination of movement. In: The Production of Speech, edited by P. MacNeilage. New York: Springer‐Verlag, 1983, p. 137–173.
 112. Koshland, G. F., M. G. Hoy, J. L. Smith, and R. F. Zernicke. Coupled and uncoupled limb oscillations during paw‐shake response. Exp. Brain Res. 83: 587–597, 1991.
 113. Koshland, G. F., and J. L. Smith. Mutable and immutable features of paw‐shake responses after hindlimb deafferentation in the cat. J. Neurophysiol. 62: 162–173, 1989.
 114. Koshland, G. F., and J. L. Smith. Paw‐shake responses with joint immobilization: EMG changes with atypical feedback. Exp. Brain Res. 77: 361–373, 1989.
 115. Kugler, P., J. A. S. Kelso, and M. T. Turvey. On the control and co‐ordination of naturally developing systems. In: The Development of Movement Control and Co‐ordination, edited by J. A. S. Kelso and J. E. Clark. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1982, p. 5–78.
 116. Kugler, P. N., and M. T. Turvey. Information, Natural Law, and the Self‐Assembly of Rhythmic Movement. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1987.
 117. Lacquaniti, F., and J. F. Soechting. Coordination of arm and wrist motion during a reaching task. J. Neurosci. 2: 399–408, 1982.
 118. Levine, W. S., F. E. Zajac, M. R. Belzer, and M. R. Zomlefer. Ankle controls that produce a maximal vertical jump when other joints are locked. IEEE Trans. Auto. Control AC‐28: 1008–1016, 1983.
 119. Lieber, R. L., and J. L. Boakes. Sarcomere length and joint kinematics during torque production in the frog hindlimb. Am. J. Physiol. 254 (Cell Physiol. 23): C759–C768, 1988.
 120. Likins, P. W. Elements of Engineering Mechanics. New York: McGraw‐Hill, 1973.
 121. Loeb, G. E. Strategies for the control of studies of voluntary movements with one degree of freedom. Behav. Brain Sci. 12: 227, 1990.
 122. Lundberg, A. Half‐centres revisited. In: Adv. Physiol. Sci. Organization Principles, edited by J. Szentagotheu, M. Palkovitis, and J. Hamori. Budapest: Pergamon Akademiai Kiado, 1981, p. 155–167.
 123. Mann, R. A. Biomechanics of walking, running, and sprinting. Am. J. Sports Med. 8: 345–350, 1980.
 124. Manter, J. T. The dynamics of quadrupedal walking. J. Exp. Biol. 15: 522–540, 1938.
 125. Marey, E. J. Mouvement. Paris: B. Masson, 1984.
 126. Marteniuk, R. G., and S. K. E. Romanow. Human movement organization and learning as revealed by variability of movement, use of kinematic information, and Fourier analysis. In: Memory and Control of Action, edited by R. A. Magill. New York: Elsevier North‐Holland, 1983.
 127. McIntyre, J., and E. Bizzi. Servo hypotheses for the biological control of movement. J. Mot. Behav. 25: 193–202, 1993.
 128. Mena, D., J. M. Mansour, and S. R. Simon. Analysis and synthesis of human swing leg motion during gait and its clinical application. J. Biomech. 14: 823–832, 1981.
 129. Mori, S. Integration of posture and locomotion in acute decerebrate cats and in awake freely moving cats. Prog. Neurobiol. 28: 161–195, 1987.
 130. Morrison, J. B. Bioengineering analysis of force actions transmitted by the knee joint. Biomed. Eng. 3: 164–170, 1968.
 131. Mussa‐Ivaldi, F. A., and S. Giszter. Vector field approximation: a computational paradigm for motor control and learning. Biol. Cybern. 67: 491–500, 1993.
 132. Mussa‐Ivaldi, F. A., N. Hogan, and E. Bizzi. Neural and geometric factors subserving arm posture. J. Neurosci. 5: 2732–2743, 1985.
 133. Muybridge, E. The Human Figure in Motion. New York: Dover, 1955.
 134. Muybridge, E. Animals in Motion. New York: Dover, 1957.
 135. Nelson, W. Physical principles for economies of skilled movements. Biol. Cybern. 46: 135–147, 1983.
 136. Newmiller, J., M. L. Hull, and F. E. Zajac. A mechanically decoupled two force component bicycle pedal dynamometer. J. Biomech. 21: 375–386, 1988.
 137. Nigg, B. M., and W. Herzog. Biomechanics of the Musculoskeletal System. Sussex, England: Wiley, 1994.
 138. Nilsson, J., A. Thorstensson, and J. Halbertsma. Changes in leg movements and muscle activity with speed of locomotion and mode of progression in humans. Acta Physiol. Scand. 123: 457–475, 1985.
 139. Oguztoereli, M. N., and R. B. Stein. Optimal control of antagonistic muscles. Biol. Cybern. 48: 91–99, 1983.
 140. Olney, S. J., and D. A. Winter. Prediction of knee and ankle moments of force in walking from EMG and kinematic data. J. Biomech. 18: 9–20, 1985.
 141. Pandy, M. G., V. Kumar, N. Berme, and K. J. Waldron. The dynamics of quadrupedal locomotion. J. Biomech. Eng. 110: 230–237, 1988.
 142. Patriarco, A. G., R. W. Mann, S. R. Simon, and J. M. Mansour. An evaluation of the approaches of optimization models in the prediction of muscle forces during human gait. J. Biomech. 14: 513–525, 1981.
 143. Paul, J. P. Biomechanics of the hip joint and its clinical relevance. Proc. R. Soc. Med. 59: 943–948, 1966.
 144. Pearson, K. G., and S. Rossignol. Fictive motor patterns in chronic spinal cats. J. Neurophysiol. 66: 1874–1887, 1991.
 145. Pedotti, A., V. V. Krishnan, and L. Stark. Optimization of muscle‐force sequencing in human locomotion. Math. Biosci. 38: 57–76, 1977.
 146. Perell, K. L., R. J. Gregor, J. A. Buford, and J. L. Smith. Adaptive control for backward quadrupedal walking. VI. Hindlimb kinetics during stance and swing. J. Neurophysiol. 70: 2226–2240, 1993.
 147. Perret, C., and J‐M. Cabelguen. Main characteristics of the hindlimb locomotor cycle in the decorticate cat with special reference to bifunctional muscles. Brain Res. 187: 333–352, 1980.
 148. Philippson, M. L'autonomie et la centralisation dans les systeme nerveux des animaux. Trav. Lab. Physiol. Inst. Solvay (Bruxelles) 7: 1–208, 1905.
 149. Phillips, S. J., E. M. Roberts, and T. C. Huang. Quantification of intersegmental reactions during rapid swing motion. J. Biomech. 16: 411–418, 1983.
 150. Pick, H. L. Motor development: the control of action. Dev. Psychobiol. 25: 867–870, 1989.
 151. Pierrynowski, M. R., and J. B. Morrison. Estimating the muscle forces generated in the human lower extremity when walking: a physiological solution. Math. Biosci. 75: 69–102, 1985.
 152. Polit, A., and E. Bizzi. Characteristics of motor programs underlying arm movements in monkey. J. Neurophysiol. 42: 183–194, 1979.
 153. Pratt, C. A., J. A. Buford, and J. L. Smith. Mutable activation of bifunctional thigh muscles during forward and backward walking. Soc. Neurosci. Abstr. 18: 1555, 1992.
 154. Pratt, C. A., J. A. Buford, and J. L. Smith. Adaptive control for backward quadrupedal walking: V. Mutable activation of bifunctional thigh muscles. J. Neurophysiol. (in press), 1995.
 155. Pratt, C. A., and G. E. Loeb. Functionally complex muscles of the cat hindlimb. I. Patterns of activation across sartorius. Exp. Brain Res. 85: 243–256, 1991.
 156. Prigogine, I. From Being to Becoming. San Francisco: Freeman, 1980.
 157. Putnam, C. A. Interaction between segments during a kicking motion. In: Biomechanics VIII‐B, edited by H. Matsui and K. Kobayashi. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Publishers, 1983, p. 688–694.
 158. Putnam, C. A. A segment interaction analysis of proximal‐to‐distal sequential segment motion patterns. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 23: 130–144, 1991.
 159. Rassmussen, S., A. K. Chan, and G. E. Goslow. The cat step cycle: electromyographic patterns of muscles during posture and unrestrained locomotion. J. Morphol. 155: 253–270, 1978.
 160. Rosenbaum, D. A., S. E. Engelbrecht, M. M. Bushe, and L. D. Loukopoulos. Knowledge model for selecting and producing reaching movements. J. Mot. Behav. 25: 217–227, 1993.
 161. Rothwell, J. C., M. M. Traub, B. L. Day, J. A. Obeso, P. K. Thomas, and C. D. Marsden. Manual motor performance in a deafferented man. Brain 105: 515–542, 1982.
 162. Sainburg, R. F., M. F. Ghilardi, H. Poizner, and C. Ghez. The control of limb dynamics in normal subjects and patients without proprioception. J. Neurophysiol. 73: 820–835, 1995.
 163. Sainburg, R. L., H. Poizner, and C. Ghez. Loss of proprioception produces deficits in interjoint coordination. J. Neurophysiol. 70: 2136–2147, 1993.
 164. Sanes, J. N., K. H. Mauritz, M. C. Dalakas, and E. V. Evarts. Motor control in humans with large‐fiber sensory neuropathy. Hum. Neurobiol. 4: 101–114, 1985.
 165. Schneider, K., R. F. Zernicke, R. A. Schmidt, and T. J. Hart. Changes in limb dynamics during the practice of rapid arm movements. J. Biomech. 22: 805–817, 1989.
 166. Schneider, K., R. F. Zernicke, B. D. Ulrich, J. J. Jensen, and E. Thelen. Understanding movement control in infants through the analysis of limb intersegmental dynamics. J. Mot. Behav. 22: 493–520, 1990.
 167. Schneider, K., and R. F. Zernicke. Jerk‐cost modulations during the practice of rapid arm movements. Biol. Cybern. 60: 221–230, 1989.
 168. Schneider, K., and R. F. Zernicke. A FORTRAN package for the planar analysis of limb intersegmental dynamics from spatial coordinate‐time data. Adv. Eng. Software 12: 123–128, 1990.
 169. Schneider, K., and R. F. Zernicke. Mass, center of mass, and moment of inertia estimates for infant limb segments. J. Biomech. 25: 145–148, 1992.
 170. Seireg, A., and R. J. Arvikar. The prediction of muscular load sharing and joint forces in the lower extremities during walking. J. Biomech. 8: 89–102, 1975.
 171. Serret, M. J.‐A. Oevres de Lagrange (Vols. 11 and 12). Paris: Guther‐Villars, 1888–1889.
 172. Shadmehr, R. Control of equilibrium position and stiffness through postural modules. J. Mot. Behav. 25: 228–241, 1993.
 173. Shadmehr, R., F. A. Mussa‐Ivaldi, and E. Bizzi. Postural force fields and their role in generation of multi‐joint movements. J. Neurosci. 13: 45–62, 1993.
 174. Sherif, F. M., R. J. Gregor, L. M. Lui, R. R. Roy, and C. L. Hager. Correlation of myoelectric activity and muscle force during selected cat treadmill locomotion. J. Biomech. 16: 691–701, 1983.
 175. Singer, C. (Ed.) A Short History of Scientific Ideas to 1900. New York: Oxford University Press, 1959.
 176. Smith, J. L., J. A. Buford, C. Chen, T. V. Trank, O. Wang, and H. S. Wijesinghe. Multifunctional CPG for the control of different forms of cat locomotion. Physiologist 36: A–22, 1993.
 177. Smith, J. L., J. A. Buford, and R. F. Zernicke. Constraints during backward walking in the quadruped. In: Posture and Gait: Development, Adaptation and Modulation, edited by B. Amblard, A. Berthoz, and F. Clarac. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers, B. V., 1988, p. 391–400.
 178. Smith, J. L., and Carlson‐Kuhta, P. Unexpected motor patterns for hindlimb muscles during slope walking in the cat. J. Neurophysiol. 74: 2211–2215, 1995.
 179. Smith, J. L., S. H. Chung, and R. F. Zernicke. Gait‐related motor patterns and hindlimb kinetics for the cat trot and gallop. Exp. Brain Res. 94: 308–322, 1993.
 180. Smith, J. L., V. R. Edgerton, B. Betts, and T. C. Collates. EMG of slow and fast extensors of the cat during posture, locomotion, and jumping. J. Neurophysiol. 40: 503–513, 1977.
 181. Smith, J. L., M. G. Hoy, G. F. Koshland, D. M. Phillips, and R. F. Zernicke. Intralimb coordination of the paw‐shake response: a novel mixed synergy. J. Neurophysiol. 54: 1271–1281, 1985.
 182. Smith, J. L., and R. F. Zernicke. Predictions for neural control based on limb dynamics. Trends Neurosci. 10: 123–128, 1987.
 183. Smith, L. B., and E. Thelen. A Dynamic Systems Approach to Development: Applications. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1993.
 184. Soechting, J. F., and M. Flanders. Arm movements in three‐dimensional space: Computation, theory, and observation. Exerc. Sport Sci. Rev. 19: 389–418, 1991.
 185. Soechting, J. F., and F. Lacquaniti. Invariant characteristics of a pointing movement in man. J. Neurosci. 1: 710–720, 1981.
 186. Son, K., J. A. Ashton‐Miller, and A. B. Schultz. The mechanical role of the trunk and lower extremities in a seated weight‐moving task in the sagittal plane. J. Biomech. Eng. 110: 97–103, 1988.
 187. Thelen, E. The (re)discovery of motor development: learning new things from an old field. Dev. Psychol. 25: 946–949, 1989.
 188. Thelen, E., D. Corbetta, K. Kamm, J. P. Spencer, K. Schneider, and R. F. Zernicke. The transition to reaching: mapping intention and intrinsic dynamics. Child Dev. 64: 1058–1098, 1993.
 189. Thelen, E., and D. M. Fisher. From spontaneous to intentional behavior: kinematic analysis of movement changes during very early learning. Child Dev. 54: 129–140, 1983.
 190. Thelen, E., and D. M. Fisher. The organization of spontaneous leg movement in newborn infants. J. Mot. Behav. 15: 353–377, 1983.
 191. Thelen, E., J. A. S. Kelso, and A. Fogel. Self‐organizing systems and infant motor development. Dev. Rev. 7: 39–65, 1987.
 192. Thelen, E., R. F. Zernicke, K. Schneider, J. L. Jensen, K. Kamm, and D. Corbetta. The role of intersegmental dynamics in infant neuromotor development. In: Tutorials in Motor Behavior II, edited by G. E. Stelmach and J. Requin. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers, B. V., 1992, p. 533–548.
 193. Thorstensson, A. How is the normal locomotor program modified to produce backward walking? Exp. Brain Res. 61: 664–668, 1986.
 194. Thorstensson, A., H. Carlson, M. R. Zomlefer, and J. Nilsson. Lumbar back muscle in relation to trunk movements during locomotion in man. Acta Physiol. Scand. 116: 13–20, 1982.
 195. Thorstensson, A., and H. Roberthson. Adaptations to changing speed in human locomotion: speed of transition between walking and running. Acta Physiol. Scand. 131: 221–214, 1987.
 196. Tuller, B., H. L. Fitch, and M. T. Turvey. The Bernstein perspective: II. The concept of muscle linkage or coordinative structure. In: Human Behavior: An Introduction, edited by J. A. S. Kelso. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1982, p. 253–270.
 197. Turvey, M. T., H. L. Fitch, and B. Tuller. The Bernstein perspective: I. The problems of degrees of freedom and context‐conditioned variability. In: Human Behavior: An Introduction, edited by J. A. S. Kelso. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1982, p. 239–252.
 198. Uno, Y., M. Kawato, and R. Suzuki. Formation and control of optimal trajectory in human multijoint arm movements: minimum torque‐change model. Biol. Cybern. 61: 89–101, 1989.
 199. Vilensky, J. A., E. Bankiewicz, and G. Gehlsen. A kinematic comparison of backward and forward walking in humans. J. Hum. Mov. Studies 13: 29–50, 1987.
 200. Viviani, P., and M. Cenzato. Segmentation and coupling in complex movements. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 11: 828–845, 1985.
 201. Vorro, J. R. Stroboscopic study of motion changes that accompany modifications and improvements in a throwing performance. Res. Q. 44: 216–226, 1973.
 202. Walmsley, B., J. A. Hodgson, and R. E. Burke. Forces produced by medial gastrocnemius muscles in cats. J. Neurophysiol. 41: 1203–1216, 1978.
 203. Weber, W., and E. Weber. Die Mechanik der Menscblichen Gehwerkzeuge (Mechanics of Human Gait). Goettingen: Dieterichschen Buchbandlung, 1836.
 204. Winter, D. A. Biomechanics and Motor Control of Human Movement, 2nd Ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1990.
 205. Winter, D. A., N. Puck, and J. F. Yang. Backward walking: a simple reversal of forward walking? J. Mot. Behav. 21: 291–305, 1989.
 206. Winter, D., and D. G. E. Robertson. Joint torque and energy patterns in normal gait. Biol. Cybern. 29: 137–142, 1978.
 207. Wisleder, D., R. F. Zernicke, and J. L. Smith. Speed‐related effects on intersegmental dynamics during the swing phase of cat locomotion. Exp. Brain Res. 79: 651–660, 1990.
 208. Woollacott, M., and A. Shumway‐Cook. The Development of Posture and Gait across the Lifespan. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1989.
 209. Yeadon, M. R., and M. Morlock. The appropriate use of regression equations for the estimation of segmental inertial parameters. J. Biomech. 22: 683–689, 1989.
 210. Zajac, F. E. Muscle and tendon: properties, models, scaling, and application to biomechanics and motor control. Crit. Rev. Biomed. Eng. 17: 359–411, 1989.
 211. Zajac, F. E., and M. E. Gordon. Determining muscle's force and action in multiarticular movement. Exerc. Sport Sci. Rev. 17: 187–230, 1989.
 212. Zajac, F. E., and W. S. Levine. Novel experimental and theoretical approaches to study the neural control of locomotion and jumping. In: Posture and Movement: Perspective for Integrating Sensory and Motor Research on the Mammalian Nervous System, edited by R. Talbott and D. Humphrey. New York: Raven Press, 1979, p. 259–279.
 213. Zernicke, R. F., and E. M. Roberts. Lower extremity forces and torques during systematic variation of non‐weightbearing motion. Med. Sci. Sports 10: 21–26, 1978.
 214. Zernicke, R. F., and K. Schneider. Biomechanics and developmental neuromotor control. Child Dev. 64: 982–1004, 1993.
 215. Zernicke, R. F., K. Schneider, and J. A. Buford. Intersegmental dynamics during gait: implications for control. In: Adaptability of Human Gait, edited by A. E. Patla. North Holland: Elsevier Science Publishers, 1991, p. 187–202.

Contact Editor

Submit a note to the editor about this article by filling in the form below.

* Required Field

Article Title: Biomechanical Insights into Neural Control of Movement
 

How to Cite

Ronald F. Zernicke, Judith L. Smith. Biomechanical Insights into Neural Control of Movement. Compr Physiol 2011, Supplement 29: Handbook of Physiology, Exercise: Regulation and Integration of Multiple Systems: 293-330. First published in print 1996. doi: 10.1002/cphy.cp120108