Showing posts with label motor control. Show all posts
Showing posts with label motor control. Show all posts

Thursday, March 30, 2017

Paralyzed Man Moves Arm with Neuroprosthetic

reposted from


Paralyzed Man Moves Arm with Neuroprosthetic

Two chips implanted in a quadriplegic patient’s motor cortex and 36 electrodes in his right arm allow the man to control the movement of his right arm and hand.
By  | March 30, 2017
SCREEN GRAB, YOUTUBEBill Kochevar, 56, has regained some control over his right arm and hand, 10 years after becoming quadriplegic following a bike accident. This partial reversal of his paralysis is thanks to technology that allows Kochevar, with the help of two recording chips in his motor cortex and 36 electrodes in his right arm, to control mechanized harness on which he rests his arm using only his thoughts,  according to a study published this week (March 28) in The Lancet.
“I was completely amazed,” Kochevar told MIT Technology Review. In a lab at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, he sipped from a straw and fed himself for the first time in a decade. “I thought about moving my arm and I could move it,” he told NPR’s Shots.
The neuroprosthetic device is not the first to restore voluntary movement to paralyzed patients. Last April, Ian Burkhart, who was paralyzed in a diving accident in 2012, made headlines after he regained control of his hand and arm using an electrode array implanted in the part of his motor cortex that controls hand movements and a sleeve of 130 electrodes worn on his forearm.
Neuroprosthetics take advantage of the motor commands that normally trigger the spinal cord to initiate a movement, but in the case of Kochevar and Burkhart, that pathway has been blocked. “What we are doing is circumventing the spinal cord injury,” Case Western Reserve biomedical engineer Bolu Ajiboye, who led the new study, told Techn Review.
In Kochevar’s case, the researchers implanted two chips in his motor cortex to record the outgoing signals, which are transmitted to a computer for processing and then to the electrodes embedded in his arm. Using the neuroprosthetic device takes some practice, but it’s working: Kochevar is now making limited, slow movements with not just his hand—as Burkhart has been able—but with his arm as well, even figuring out how to scratch his nose, Shots reported.
“At first I had to think really hard to get it to do stuff,” Kochevar told Tech Review. “I’m still thinking about it, but I’m not recognizing that I’m thinking about it.”

Friday, March 13, 2015

Transcranial magnetic stimulation follow-up study in early Parkinson's disease: A decline in compensation with disease progression?

REPOSTED FROM

Transcranial magnetic stimulation follow-up study in early Parkinson's disease: A decline in compensation with disease progression?

Mov Disord. 2015 Mar 5. doi: 10.1002/mds.26167. [Epub ahead of print]
Kojovic MKassavetis PBologna MPareés IRubio-Agusti IBeraredelli AEdwards MJRothwell JCBhatia KP.

Abstract

A number of neurophysiological abnormalities have been described in patients with Parkinson's disease, but very few longitudinal studies of how these change with disease progression have been reported. We describe measures of motor cortex inhibition and plasticity at 6 and 12 mo in 12 patients that we previously reported at initial diagnosis. Given the well-known interindividual variation in these measures, we were particularly concerned with the within-subject changes over time. Patients were assessed clinically, and transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) was used to measure motor cortical excitability, inhibition (short interval intracortical inhibition, cortical silent period), and plasticity (response to excitatory paired associative stimulation protocol) in both hemispheres. All measurements were performed 6 mo and 12 mo after the baseline experiments. Asymmetry in clinical motor symptoms was reflected in asymmetry of plasticity and inhibition. In the group as a whole, little change was seen in any of the parameters over 12 mo. However, analysis of within-individual data showed clear correlations between changes in clinical asymmetry and asymmetry of response to paired associative stimulation protocol and cortical silent period. Longitudinal changes in cortical silent period and response to paired associative stimulation protocol in Parkinson's disease reflect dynamic effects on motor cortex that are related to progression of motor signs. They are useful objective markers of early disease progression that could be used to detect effects of disease-modifying therapies. The decline in heightened plasticity that was present at disease onset may reflect failure of compensatory mechanisms that maintained function in the preclinical state.

Saturday, October 18, 2014

Myelin’s Role in Motor Learning

reposted from - but I love the 2nd comment below about exercise and MS

Myelin’s Role in Motor Learning

The production of new myelin in the brain—a function of non-neuronal glial cells—may be necessary for motor learning, a mouse study shows.
By  | October 16, 2014
  • Link this
  • Stumble
Oligodendrocytes extend thin processes of their cell membranes to form the myelin sheaths that wrap around neuronal axons.WIKIMEDIA, LADYOFHATSChanges in myelin, the fatty sheaths that insulate neuronal axons, may play a role in motor learning, according to a study published today (October 16) in Science. Genetically engineered mice that could not produce myelin were less skilled at learning a new motor task—running on a wheel with unevenly spaced rungs—than control mice.
“The paper shows very clearly that the ability to generate new myelin is necessary for adult mice to learn a complex motor task,” said the University of Michigan’s Gabriel Corfas, author of an accompanying commentary in Science and who was not involved in the research.
Moreover, because myelin is produced by non-neuronal glial cells called oligodendrocytes, which myelinate axons by extending thin processes of their cell membranes to wrap around them, the study challenges the long-standing assumption that learning results exclusively from changes to neuronal anatomy or function. “What this paper really does in a very compelling and elegant way is show that the glial cells . . . really perform much more important tasks than had hitherto been assigned to them,” said Robin Franklin, professor at the University of Cambridge, who studies the process of remyelination and who was not involved in the work. “This paper is a very significant step in a mounting body of work that shows that in fact the glial cells are not simply cells for neurons; they have, in their own right, fundamentally important roles in how the brain works.”
“This is a very significant paradigm shift in the ways we think about how the brain changes in order to acquire information,” Corfas agreed.
Magnetic resonance imaging experiments in humans and rats have associated changes in the brain’s white matter, myelinated axons bundled together in large cables, with training in motor skills, but exactly how and why those changes were occurring was unclear. William Richardson, director of the Wolfson Institute for Biomedical Research at University College London, and his colleagues used a genetic system to selectively excise part of a gene called myelin regulatory factor (Myrf), inactivating it, in the oligodendrocyte precursor cells of laboratory mice. Myrf is not typically expressed in oligodendrocyte precursors but is necessary for the differentiation of new oligodendrocytes. “It’s not expressed until the precursors try and differentiate and express Myrf, and then if Myrf is missing, they just get stuck at that point,” said Richardson, “and we believe they die.” In other words, no Myrf means no new oligodendrocytes, and thus no new myelin. The system did not, however, affect preexisting oligodendrocytes.
Sure enough, mice lacking both copies of Myrf had fewer new oligodendrocytes and less myelin in the corpus callosum, a highly myelinated area that connects the two hemispheres of the brain and is involved in motor learning, compared with mice in which only one copy was deleted. Loss of Myrf also prevented mice from learning to run on a complex running wheel, with rungs unevenly spaced. Mice with both copies of Myrf quickly learned to use the new wheel and ran faster and farther per night than mice whose Myrf genes were inactivated.
To confirm that Myrf was impairing learning specifically, and not just motor skills in general, researchers tried introducing mice to the complex wheel before excising Myrf. In mice that had already learned to use the complex wheel, loss of Myrf had no effect on running speed, suggesting that myelin is important for learning but not recall or motor coordination.
“It’s known that the synapses between neurons strengthen when the circuits those neurons are a part of fire, and that has always been believed to be what underpins learning—this synaptic strengthening, so-called long-term potentiation,” said Richardson. “What our study shows is that although that undoubtedly does occur, there’s an additional refinement . . . which is that the active circuits presumably must get myelinated.”
Richardson added that he and his colleagues next plan to explore the roles of oligodendrocytes in other kinds of learning as well. “By finding a new mechanism involved in learning, it gives us a whole new target that in future we might be able to manipulate in order to, say, improve or accelerate learning,” said Richardson. Such information about the roles of myelination in learning could also be relevant to demyelinating diseases, such as multiple sclerosis, he added.
“I think this is an outstanding piece of work,” Franklin said. “It’s a landmark study in myelin biology and in neuroscience.”
I.A. McKenzie et al., “Motor skill learning requires active central myelination,” Science, doi:10.1126/science.1254960, 2014.
Avatar of: Kim Krieger
Posts: 2
October 17, 2014
Oligodendrocyte precursor cells are so numerous in the brain, and yet we understand so little about their role(s)...it would be interesting to explore what other functions were affected by the deletion of Myrf.
    Avatar of: Jensch
    Posts: 1
    October 17, 2014
    I've had MS for 14 years, determined by a brain biopsy.  The first few years I had relapses, then I decided to get my college math degree. I've been I school for about 6 years pretty much full time, but since I have, I haven't had one relapse.  I truly believe if you can push your mind and keep it active, along with your body it has tremendous benefit. I've never been in better shape, and I feel like I've never been healthier. I do also exercise and eat good too.

    Tuesday, June 3, 2014

    Motor Learning In Dance

    just found this posting and am reposted it here from http://www.4dancers.org/2013/01/motor-learning-in-dance/

    Motor Learning In Dance

    This month one of our guest authors is Donna Krasnow, PhD, a long-time leader and researcher in dance medicine and science. One of her areas of specialization is Motor Learning —i.e, how the body learns movement.  There are many aspects to the recent research in this field that are helpful for dancers / teachers to be aware of, so Donna’s article is a welcome addition to our growing list of topics to share with you.
    As always, if you have any comments / questions, we would love to hear from you!  – Jan Dunn, Dance Wellness Editor
    ________________________________________________________________________
    Motor Learning In Dance
    by Donna Krasnow, PhD
    When we look at how dancers move and how they learn to dance, we sometimes call this motor behavior.  One area of motor behavior is known as motor development.  This answers questions about how we change from birth to our senior years.  For example, anyone who has taught young children will know that the 3-4 years olds can gallop and hop, but most cannot skip yet.  By the time children are 6 years old, most can skip, as they have developed enough motor control to do this complex task.
    Motor control tells us how the brain can plan and direct our movement.  One example of this is what we call muscle synergies, or how groups of muscles learn to work together.  Some of these synergies are learned through our natural development, such as the easy oppositional swing of the arms to the legs in everyday walking.  Some are specific to dance, such as moving through space maintaining turnout, or learning to lift the arms overhead while keeping the shoulders down.
    What is motor learning?
    motor learning in dance
    Motor learning is the area of study that looks at how the dancer learns new movement, but not just in a single class or practice session.  When we use the term motor learning, we are referring to changes that are learned through practice and are permanent, or “remembered” on some level, even if that remembering is not something we are aware of.  Simply being able to do something new for a minute in class does not mean it has been learned, as all teachers know!
    The learning process
    What affects how dancers learn?  We know that individuals have different learning styles:
    • Some learn visually, and need to see demonstrations to learn well.
    • Others need verbal instructions or explanations to do their best.
    • Some are what we call “kinesthetic”, and need hands-on information, or touch.
    The most effective teachers use a variety of ways to present and instruct, and dancers who can learn how to broaden their learning styles will be able to work with many different teachers and choreographers.
    Demonstrating
    Most dancers, especially beginners, need to see demonstrations of new material, or material they want to improve.  With demonstrations, dancers can see how the different body parts organize, how the movement fits rhythmically with the music, how the body orients in space, and many other important aspects of the movement.  Often it is best to let the dancers see one or more demonstrations, try the combination first, and then give them additional instructions. We know from the research in motor learning that it is very easy to overload the dancer, especially the beginner, with too much information at the start of learning new material, and this will hinder rather than aid learning.
    Giving feedback
    So what about feedback after material has been seen and attempted?  First let’s look at when feedback should be given, and how often.  We can give feedback to dancers, usually called corrections, during their movement or after they have done the combination.  If feedback is being given while the dancer is moving, it is important that it enhances or adds to what they are already doing, rather than try to get them to completely change their efforts.  For example, during a series of leaps, one could say “Yes, stretch your legs even more, and lift up through the top of your head!”
    Corrections that are intended to make a shift or change should be saved for the time between attempts.  This might include a change in timing, or a change in the positioning of the arms during the movement, or a total shift in spatial direction.  It is very difficult for the dancer to make a change in approach or strategy while in motion, as it demands too much attention.  This might actually cause a deterioration in the skill.
    dance correctionsWhen it comes to the question of “how often” we should give feedback, the traditional view was “the more the merrier”.  We now know that constant feedback is not as useful as giving dancers the opportunity to have time to practice without ongoing information.  It allows what we call problem-solving time, and in the long run makes the dancer a better learner and a stronger dancer.
    What do we know about the nature of feedback?  Should it be about what the dancer is doing wrong, or should we praise what they are doing correctly?  The answer to this question is both, but for different reasons!  In order to improve, dancers need to hear what they are doing wrong (known as error detection) in order to make changes.  More advanced dancers can often figure this out themselves, but beginners need help with this. This does not mean that the teacher’s tone needs to be harsh or insulting or demeaning.  Feedback can be given is a supportive and encouraging voice.
    On the other side of things, praise and recognition of what is being done correctly is extremely important for motivation.  While it will not improve the skill level per se, it will encourage the dancer to continue practicing, and to feel confident about his or her work.  And this will, in the end, improve the dancer’s abilities.
    A word about video
    Does it help dancers see themselves on video?  There is a lot of controversy about this process.  One thing we do know is that if beginning dancers are going to look at video of their dancing, the instructor needs to be present to point out what the dancers can learn from their observations, and how to improve their next attempts.  Seeing video with no educated information is not that useful as a learning tool.
    Effective practice
    Another important subject that motor learning researchers look at is retention.  Since learning is about making new information and skills relatively permanent, how do dancers retain information?  Clearly dancers need a great deal of practice, practice, practice.  It can take hundreds if not thousands of hours to learn a body of dance skills.  However, a few boundaries should be observed.
    First, constant practice without feedback can be detrimental.  If the dancer is practicing something incorrectly, then this error will become permanently imbedded in the skill!  We hope to guide the dancer towards more effective execution with each practice.
    Second, practice should never be pushed to the point of fatigue and injury.  Rest is an important part of the big picture, and we know that even during sleep, the brain continues to process new information and learn.
    Third, practice needs variety.  Try doing the skill at different speeds, with changes in the space, with different arm or leg gestures, and even with different emotional intention.  Variety challenges the motor system.  Although it may seem that practicing a skill the same way over and over leads to the best learning, this is a myth.  Varying the skill may at first look awkward and confused, but in the long run, it results in better learning.  And let’s not forget that variety is a great way to avoid boredom and keep the dancer attentive.  Without attention, there is no learning.
    Learning on right or left?
    learning danceAnother issue that has come up in the study of dance and motor learning is the question of laterality, or on what side should we be learning new material, right or left?  Recent articles in dance have suggested that we should be learning on the left (non-dominant) side first, at least some of the time.  Interestingly, when we look at the research on this in other fields, what we know is this: First, there is learning transfer, so if you learn something on the right, some of that information is automatically learned on the left, and vice versa.  Second, that transfer is stronger when you learn on the dominant (right for most) side first.  This seems to contradict what the dance writers are saying.
    I would suggest that the problem is not that we learn on the right side first, but that due to class procedure, this gives the dancers far more practice on the first side.  Often the teacher will demonstrate on the first side (while many dancers are following along), then give verbal information (while dancers practice), then mark it on the first side, then finally do it full out on the first side.  Then the dancers might do a quick mark on the second side, and do the combination.  This process is biased towards much more repetition on the first side.  Teachers need to ensure that there are extra attempts on the second side, to even out the practice.
    Using mirrors
    One other learning tool that is fairly universal in dance is the use of mirrors.  Again, this is an area of controversy.  What do we actually know?  There is some research that suggests that learning is faster using mirrors, but less is retained or remembered the next day, or in future days.  More importantly, learning with the mirror may actually be detrimental to kinesthetic learning, that is, the dancer knowing from “feel” how to do something.  In a study with athletes who worked with mirrors, they were practicing how to keep the knee aligned with the foot to prevent injury (sound familiar?).  When they turned away from the mirror, their errors (knee going off the correct line) increased by 50%.  Ouch.
    A final word
    The last controversial topic I will mention is how we use language to give instruction.  As tempting as it is, bringing dancers’ attention to a specific muscle while they are dancing is generally not a useful approach.  It is better to describe movement outcomes or goals, and let the brain select the muscles.  This can be done in a variety of ways, including describing movement shaping (draw a large arch on the floor with your foot as your body lengthens vertically), or using metaphor (lift up your chest and eyes as you open your arms as if you want the sun to warm your upper body), or anatomical imagery (imagine your shoulder blades sliding down your back like they are melting as your arms are going up to 5th position).
    Teachers are creative artists who can draw on their years of expertise and imagination to create a class that draws on all of the current motor learning ideas while maintaining the beautiful traditions of our art form.
    Donna Krasnow
    Donna Krasnow, PhD
    BIO: Donna Krasnow, PhD, is a Full Professor in the Department of Dance at York University in Toronto, and a lecturer at California State University, Northridge, and California Institute of the Arts. For the past thirty years she has worked professionally as a choreographer, performer, dance educator, and researcher. She was founding Artistic Director for Möbius Dance Company in San Francisco, and has performed and taught extensively in the United States, Canada, Australia, and Japan. Donna has performed with Footloose Dance Company (San Francisco), Daniel Lewis Repertory Dance Company (New York), Northern Lights Dance Company (Toronto) and as performing as a guest artist with Bill T. Jones / Arnie Zane Dance Company in its 1990 Toronto season. She is noted for her teaching of the José Limón technique and has taught for the José Limón Dance Institute in New York. Donna was head of the modern division at the Canadian Children’s Dance Theatre in Toronto from 1988-2007, where she has developed a curriculum for young dancers (10-18 years old) integrating Limón technique, improvisation and composition.
    Donna specializes in dance science research, concentrating on dance kinesiology, injury prevention and care, conditioning for dancers, and motor learning and motor control, with a special emphasis on the young dancer. She was the Conference Director for the International Association for Dance Medicine and Science from 2004-2008, and served on the IADMS Board of Directors from 1996-2008. She has also served on the Board of Directors of the Performing Arts Medicine Association, and was a founding member of Healthy Dancer Canada.  Donna conducts workshops for professional dance teachers in alignment and healthy practices for dancers, including the Teachers Day Seminars at York University, Arts Umbrella in Vancouver, and a nine-time resident guest artist at the Victorian College of the Arts, University of Melbourne, Australia. She has been a keynote speaker for professional dance associations such as Cecchetti Australia, and an invited speaker for A Day for Teachers, sponsored by IADMS, on several occasions. She regularly consults on curriculum development for various colleges and universities. In addition to being a GYROTONIC trainer since 2005, Donna has created a specialized body conditioning system for dancers called C-I Training™ (conditioning with imagery). She has produced a DVD series of this work, and in 2010 published the book Conditioning with Imagery for Dancers with co-author Jordana Deveau. Information about the dvds and the book can be found at www.citraining.com. ; She has also published extensively in the Journal of Dance Medicine and Science, Medical Problems of Performing Artists, and Journal of Dance Education, as well as invited author for three resource papers for IADMS, in collaboration with Dr. Virginia Wilmerding.  Donna completed her PhD in 2012 doing biomechanics research on dancers through the University of Wolverhampton in the UK, and is currently working on a new book on Motor Learning for Dancers with Dr. Virginia Wilmerding for Human Kinetics.

    Monday, May 5, 2014

    Motor cortex shown to play active role in learning movement patterns

    reposted

    [ Back to EurekAlert! ]
    PUBLIC RELEASE DATE:

    4-May-2014

    Print | E-mail ] Share Share
     Close Window ] 

    Contact: Kim McDonald
    kmcdonald@ucsd.edu
    858-534-7572
    University of California - San Diego 

    Motor cortex shown to play active role in learning movement patterns

     IMAGE: Cells in the motor cortex of mice display regions in which the neurons are active (in green) and regions in which neuron firing is inhibited (in red).
    Click here for more information.
    Skilled motor movements of the sort tennis players employ while serving a tennis ball or pianists use in playing a concerto, require precise interactions between the motor cortex and the rest of the brain. Neuroscientists had long assumed that the motor cortex functioned something like a piano keyboard.
    "Every time you wanted to hear a specific note, there was a specific key to press," says Andrew Peters, a neurobiologist at UC San Diego's Center for Neural Circuits and Behavior. "In other words, every specific movement of a muscle required the activation of specific cells in the motor cortex because the main job of the motor cortex was thought to be to listen to the rest of the cortex and press the keys it's directed to press."
    But in a study published in this week's advance online publication of the journal Nature, Peters, the first author of the paper, and his colleagues found that the motor cortex itself plays an active role in learning new motor movements. In a series of experiments using mice, the researchers showed in detail how those movements are learned over time.
    "Our finding that the relationship between body movements and the activity of the part of the cortex closest to the muscles is profoundly plastic and shaped by learning provides a better picture of this process," says Takaki Komiyama, an assistant professor of biology at UC San Diego who headed the research team. "That's important, because elucidating brain plasticity during learning could lead to new avenues for treating learning and movement disorders, including Parkinson's disease."
    With Simon Chen, another UC San Diego neurobiologist, the researchers monitored the activity of neurons in the motor cortex over a period of two weeks while mice learned to press a lever in a specific way with their front limbs to receive a reward.
    "What we saw was that during learning, different patterns of activity—which cells are active, when they're active—were evident in the motor cortex," says Peters. "This ends up translating to different patterns of activity even for similar movements. Once the animal has learned the movement, similar movements are then accompanied by consistent activity. This consistent activity moreover is totally new to the animal: it wasn't used early in learning even with movements that were similar to the later movement."
    "Early on," Peters says, "the animals will occasionally make movements that look like the expert movements they make after learning. The patterns of brain activity that accompany those similar early and late movements are actually completely different though. Over the course of learning, the animal generates a whole new set of activity in the motor cortex to make that movement. In the piano keyboard analogy, that's like using one key to make a note early on, but a different key to make the same note later."
    ###
    The study was supported by grants from the Japan Science and Technology Agency, Pew Charitable Trusts, Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, David & Lucile Packard Foundation, Human Frontier Science Program and New York Stem Cell Foundation.


    [ Back to EurekAlert! ]Print | E-mail Share Share Close Window ] 



    AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert! system.


    Tuesday, February 11, 2014

    No Clowning Around: Juggling Study May Shed Light on How Our Senses Help Us Run


    No Clowning Around: Juggling Study May Shed Light on How Our Senses Help Us Run

    February 11, 2014
    MEDIA CONTACT: Phil Sneiderman
    Office: 443-997-9907
    Cell: 410-299-7462
    prs@jhu.edu
    Juggling may sound like mere entertainment, but a study led by Johns Hopkins engineers has used this circus skill to gather critical clues about how vision and the sense of touch help control the way humans and animals move their limbs in a repetitive way, such as in running. The findings eventually may aid in the treatment of people with neurological diseases and could lead to prosthetic limbs and robots that move more efficiently.
    The study was published online recently by theJournal of Neurophysiology and is the cover article in the journal’s March 2014 print edition.
    Johns Hopkins engineers, led by Noah Cowan, studied a juggling task to learn how the sense of touch contributes to rhythmic movement such as running. Photo credit: Johns Hopkins University
    In their paper, the team led by Johns Hopkins researchers detailed the unusual jump from juggling for fun to serious science. Jugglers, they explained, rely on repeated rhythmic motions to keep multiple balls aloft. Similar forms of rhythmic movement are also common in the animal world, where effective locomotion is equally important to a swift-moving gazelle and to the cheetah that’s chasing it.
    “It turns out that the art of juggling provides an interesting window into many of the same questions that you try to answer when you study forms of locomotion, such as walking or running,” said Noah Cowan, an associate professor ofmechanical engineering who supervised the research. “In our study, we had participants stand still and use their hands in a rhythmic way. It’s very much like watching them move their feet as they run. But we used juggling as a model for rhythmic motor coordination because it’s a simpler system to study.”
    Specifically, Cowan and his colleagues wanted to look at how the brain uses vision and the sense of touch to control this type of behavior. To do so, they set up a simple virtual juggling scenario. Participants held a real-world paddle connected to a computer and were told to bounce an on-screen ball repeatedly up to a target area between two lines, also drawn on the monitor. In some trials, the participants had only their vision to guide them. In others experiments, whenever the digital ball hit the onscreen paddle the participants also received a brief impulse on their real-world paddle. This mimicked the sensation they would feel if a real ball had actually struck the paddle they were holding.
    An amateur juggler since middle school, Noah Cowan is now an associate professor of mechanical engineering at Johns Hopkins University. Photo credit: Johns Hopkins University.
    With the added touch sensation, also called haptic feedback, the participants made about half as many errors in the task, the researchers reported.
    “We have a pretty good understanding as to why,” said Cowan, who has been an amateur juggler since middle school. “One of the tricky challenges in juggling is catching a rhythm; that is, getting yourself entrained with the movement of the ball. It’s about timing your own action with the action in the environment. When you get the pulse of haptic feedback at the exact moment the ball hits the paddle, it give you a precise sense of the timing for the juggling pattern that you’re trying to achieve.”
    Added M. Mert Ankarali, a Johns Hopkins mechanical engineering doctoral student who was lead author of the study: “The human nervous system gets feedback all of the time from our sense of vision. But the important thing about the sense of touch while juggling is that we get a precise timing cue that complements the continuous visual feedback. This timing cue is very important for us to get the rhythm of the juggling task.”
    A more surprising discovery was that adding the touch feedback didn’t seem to improve the participants’ ability to correct for any juggling errors they made while trying to hit the ball into the target zone. But it did enable them to make fewer errors overall. “The haptic sensation is just a tiny bit of feedback that’s provided once per juggling cycle,” Cowan said. “Yet that tiny bit of information seems to be critical for people to improve their juggling performance. We think that’s because while vision provides excellent spatial and positioning information, the haptic information provides very important timing information.”
    When humans and animals walk or run, Cowan added, their sense of touch plays a key role: As the runner’s feet touch the ground, they alert the nervous system to adjust the movement of the legs to accommodate changes in the running surface. He also noted that the brain’s ability to instantly integrate information coming from both the eyes and the sense of touch is a critical part of successful running, juggling and other repetitive movements.
    The researchers say that future studies of the connection between sensory feedback, timing and limb movements could help clinicians to better understand how some neurological diseases such as sensory ataxia might disrupt the brain’s timing of movements by arms and legs. Future findings may also assist engineers who are trying to make touch-sensitive artificial limbs and robots that move as skillfully as animals in the wild.
    Along with Cowan and Ankarali, the co-authors of the juggling study were H. Tutkun Sen, a Johns Hopkins computer science graduate student; Avik De, a University of Pennsylvania doctoral student who earned his undergraduate degree at Johns Hopkins; and Allison M. Okamura, an associate professor of mechanical engineering at Stanford University.
    The research was based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under grants 0845749 and 642 1230493 to Cowan. Ankarali was partially supported by a fellowship from the Department of Mechanical Engineering, Johns Hopkins University. The department is within the university’s Whiting School of Engineering.
    A related video may be viewed at: http://youtu.be/GOulwW6b66Q
    A movie clip of the juggling task used in the study can be viewed at: http://youtu.be/qmn7p2f_HLs
    Digital photos and illustration available; contact Phil Sneiderman.
    ###
    Johns Hopkins University news releases can be found online at http://releases.jhu.edu/. Information on automatic email delivery of science and medical news releases is available at the same address

    Office of Communications
    Johns Hopkins University
    3910 Keswick Road, Suite N2600
    Baltimore, Maryland 21211
    Phone: 443-997-9009 | Fax: 443 997-1006