Kapur, S., Friedman, J., Zatsiorsky, V. M., & Latash, M. L. (2010). Finger interaction in a three-dimensional pressing task. Experimental Brain Research, 203(1), 101–118.
Abstract: Accurate control of forces produced by the fingers is essential for performing object manipulation. This study examines the indices of finger interaction when accurate time profiles of force are produced in different directions, while using one of the fingers or all four fingers of the hand. We hypothesized that patterns of unintended force production among shear force components may involve features not observed in the earlier studies of vertical force production. In particular, we expected to see unintended forces generated by non-task fingers not in the
direction on the instructed force but in the opposite direction as well as substantial force production in directions orthogonal to the instructed direction. We also tested a hypothesis that multi-finger synergies, quantified using the framework of the uncontrolled manifold hypothesis, will help reduce across-trials variance of both total force magnitude and direction. Young, healthy subjects were required to produce accurate ramps of force in five different directions by
pressing on force sensors with the fingers of the right (dominant) hand. The index finger induced the smallest unintended forces in non-task fingers. The little finger showed the smallest unintended forces when it was a non-task finger. Task fingers showed substantial force production in directions orthogonal to the intended force direction. During four-finger tasks, individual force vectors typically pointed off the task direction, with these deviations nearly
perfectly matched to produce a resultant force in the task direction. Multi-finger synergy indices reflected strong co-variation in the space of finger modes (commands to fingers) that reduced variability of the total force magnitude and direction across trials. The synergy indices increased in magnitude over the first 30% of the trial time and then stayed at a nearly constant level. The synergy index for stabilization of total force magnitude was higher for shear force components as compared to the downward pressing force component. The results suggest complex interactions between enslaving and synergic force adjustments, possibly reflecting the experience with everyday prehensile tasks. For the first time, the data document multi-finger synergies stabilizing both shear force magnitude and force vector direction. These synergies may play a major role in
stabilizing the hand action during object manipulation.
|
Friedman, J., & Korman, M. (2019). Observation of an expert model induces a skilled movement coordination pattern in a single session of intermittent practice. Sci Rep, 9(1), 4609.
Abstract: We tested how observation of a skilled pattern of planar movements can assist in the learning of a new motor skill, which otherwise requires rigorous long-term practice to achieve fast and smooth performance. Sixty participants performed a sequence of planar hand movements on pre-test, acquisition, post-test and 24 h post-training blocks, under 1 of 4 conditions: an observation group (OG), a slowed observation group (SOG), a random motion control group (RMCG) and a double physical training control group (DPTCG). The OG and SOG observed an expert model's right hand performing the study task intermittently throughout acquisition, RMCG observed random dots movement instead of a model. Participants in the DPTCG received extra physical practice trials instead of the visually observed trials. Kinematic analysis revealed that only in conditions with observation of an expert model there was an instant robust improvement in motor planning of the task. This step-wise improvement was not only persistent in post-training retests but was also apparently implicit and subject to further incremental improvements in movement strategy over the period of 24 hours. The rapid change in motor strategy was accompanied by a transient within-session increase in spatial error for the observation groups, but this went away by 24 h post-training. We suggest that observation of hand movements of an expert model coaligned with self-produced movements during training can significantly condense the time-course of ecologically relevant drawing/writing skill mastery.
|
Zacks, O., & Friedman, J. (2020). Analogies can speed up the motor learning process. Sci Rep, 10(1), 6932.
Abstract: Analogies have been shown to improve motor learning in various tasks and settings. In this study we tested whether applying analogies can shorten the motor learning process and induce insight and skill improvement in tasks that usually demand many hours of practice. Kinematic measures were used to quantify participant's skill and learning dynamics. For this purpose, we used a drawing task, in which subjects drew lines to connect dots, and a mirror game, in which subjects tracked a moving stimulus. After establishing a baseline, subjects were given an analogy, explicit instructions or no further instruction. We compared their improvement in skill (quantified by coarticulation or smoothness), accuracy and movement duration. Subjects in the analogy and explicit groups improved their coarticulation in the target task, while significant differences were found in the mirror game only at a slow movement frequency between analogy and controls.We conclude that a verbal analogy can be a useful tool for rapidly changing motor kinematics and movement strategy in some circumstances, although in the tasks selected it did not produce better performance in most measurements than explicit guidance. Furthermore, we observed that different movement facets may improve independently from others, and may be selectively affected by verbal instructions. These results suggest an important role for the type of instruction in motor learning.
|
Friedman, J., Amiaz, A., & Korman, M. (2022). The online and offline effects of changing movement timing variability during training on a finger-opposition task. Sci Rep, 12(1), 13319.
Abstract: In motor learning tasks, there is mixed evidence for whether increased task-relevant variability in early learning stages leads to improved outcomes. One problem is that there may be a connection between skill level and motor variability, such that participants who initially have more variability may also perform worse on the task, so will have more room to improve. To avoid this confound, we experimentally manipulated the amount of movement timing variability (MTV) during training to test whether it improves performance. Based on previous studies showing that most of the improvement in finger-opposition tasks comes from optimizing the relative onset time of the finger movements, we used auditory cues (beeps) to guide the onset times of sequential movements during a training session, and then assessed motor performance after the intervention. Participants were assigned to three groups that either: (a) followed a prescribed random rhythm for their finger touches (Variable MTV), (b) followed a fixed rhythm (Fixed control MTV), or (c) produced the entire sequence following a single beep (Unsupervised control MTV). While the intervention was successful in increasing MTV during training for the Variable group, it did not lead to improved outcomes post-training compared to either control group, and the use of fixed timing led to significantly worse performance compared to the Unsupervised control group. These results suggest that manipulating MTV through auditory cues does not produce greater learning than unconstrained training in motor sequence tasks.
|
Steinhart, S., Weiss, P. L., & Friedman, J. (2021). Proximal and distal movement patterns during a graphomotor task in typically developing children and children with handwriting problems. J Neuroeng Rehabil, 18(1), 178.
Abstract: BACKGROUND: Therapists specializing in handwriting difficulties in children often address motor problems including both proximal and distal movements in the upper extremity. Kinematic measures can be used to investigate various aspects of handwriting. This study examined differences in movement patterns in proximal and distal joints of the upper extremity during graphomotor tasks between typically developing children with and without handwriting problems. Additionally, it explored relationships between movement patterns, speed, and legibility of writing. METHODS: Forty-one children, aged 7-11 years, were assessed with the Aleph Aleph Ktav Yad Hebrew Handwriting assessment and the Beery Test of Visual Motor Integration and, based on their scores, were divided into a research group (with handwriting difficulties) and a control group (without handwriting difficulties). Upper extremity joint movement patterns were analyzed with a motion capture system. Differences in the quality of shapes traced and copied on a graphics tablet positioned horizontally and vertically were compared. Between-group differences and relationships with speed and legibility were analyzed. RESULTS: In both groups, there was greater movement in the distal compared to the proximal joints, greater movement when performing the task in a horizontal compared to a vertical plane, and greater movement when tracing than copying. Joint movements in the arm executed scaled-down versions of the shapes being drawn. While the amount of joint displacement was similar between groups, children in the research group showed greater dissimilarity between the drawn shape and the shape produced by the proximal joints. Finally, the drawing measure on the tablet was a significant predictor of legibility, speed of writing, visual motor integration and motor coordination, whereas the dissimilarity measure of joint movement was a significant predictor of speed of writing and motor coordination. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides support for the role of the distal upper extremity joints in the writing process and some guidance to assist clinicians in devising treatment strategies for movement-related handwriting problems. While we observed differences in proximal joint movements between the children with and without handwriting difficulties, the extent to which they are responsible for the differences in drawing quality remains to be determined. Further studies should use a similar methodology to examine additional tasks such as drawing shapes of varying sizes.
|
