Journal article

Does the Motor System Need Intermittent Control?

Ian David Loram, Cornelis van de Kamp, Martin Lakie, Henrik Gollee, Peter J Gawthrop

Exercise and Sport Sciences Reviews | LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS | Published : 2014

Abstract

Explanation of motor control is dominated by continuous neurophysiological pathways (e.g., transcortical, spinal) and the continuous control paradigm. Using new theoretical development, methodology, and evidence, we propose intermittent control, which incorporates a serial ballistic process within the main feedback loop, provides a more general and more accurate paradigm necessary to explain attributes highly advantageous for competitive survival and performance.

University of Melbourne Researchers

Grants

Awarded by EPSRC


Awarded by Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council


Funding Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the work of other researchers that could not be cited because of reference limitation. Authors we are aware of contributing directly to ideas of intermittent and serial ballistic control include Craik (1947-1948), Vince (1948), Navas and Stark (1968), Beggs (1974), Poulton (1974), Miall et al. (1986), Neilson (1988-2012), Miall and Wolpert (1992-3), Hanneton et al. (1997), Slifkin and Newell (2000-), Russell (2001), Gross (2002), Morasso (1999-), Milton (2005-), Botarro et al. (2005-), Fishbach (2005-), Stepan and Insperger (2006-), Houk (2007-), Asai (2009-), Suszuki (2012-), and Karniel (2013). The theory of intermittent control and its application to human motion control have been developed during the past 25 years by P. D. Neilson and M. D. Neilson. P. Gawthrop acknowledges discussions with them about intermittent control during the past 14 years. The authors acknowledge EPSRC financial support for this work via the linked grants EP/F068514/1, EP/F069022/1, and EP/F06974X/1.