Sezione Fisiologia Umana, Dipartimento di Fisiopatologia Medico-Chirurgica e dei Trapianti, Università degli Studi di Milano, Via L. Mangiagalli 32, 20133 Milan, Italy.
Exp Brain Res. 2013 Aug;229(2):203-19. doi: 10.1007/s00221-013-3605-2. Epub 2013 Jun 21.
When coupling cyclic adduction-abduction movements of the arms in the transverse (horizontal) plane, isodirectional (ISO) coupling is less stable than antidirectional (ANTI) coupling. We proposed that such deficiency stems from the disturbing action that anticipatory postural adjustments exert on ISO coupling. To ascertain if postural adjustments differentiate ISO versus ANTI coupling coordination in other types of cyclic arm movements, we examined flexion-extension oscillations in the parasagittal plane. Oscillations of the right arm alone elicited cyclic Postural Adjustments (PAs) in the left Anterior Deltoid and Posterior Deltoid, which replicated the excitation-inhibition pattern of the prime movers right Anterior Deltoid, right Posterior Deltoid. Cyclic PAs also developed symmetrically in Erector Spinae (RES and LES) and in phase opposition in Ischiocruralis (RIC and LIC), so as to discharge to the ground both an anteroposterior force, Fy, and a moment about the vertical axis, Tz. Oscillations of both arms in ISO coupling induced symmetric PAs in both ES and IC muscles, thus generating a large Fy but no Tz. In ANTI coupling, PAs in RES and LES remained symmetric but smaller in size, while PAs in RIC and LIC were large and opposite in phase, resulting in a large Tz and small Fy. Altogether, PAs would thus favour ISO and hamper ANTI parasagittal movements because (1) in the motor pathways to the prime movers of either arm, a convergence would occur between the voluntary commands and the commands for PAs linked to the movement of the other arm, the two commands having the same sign (excitatory or inhibitory) during ISO and an opposite sign during ANTI; (2) the postural effort of trunk and leg muscles would be higher for generating Tz in ANTI than Fy in ISO. These predictions fit with the finding that coupling stability was lower in ANTI than in ISO, i.e., opposite to horizontal movements. In conclusion, in both parasagittal and horizontal arm movements, the less coordinated coupling mode was the one constrained by postural adjustments through the two above mechanisms.
当手臂在横(水平)面内进行周期性内收-外展运动时,同方向(ISO)耦合比反方向(ANTI)耦合稳定性差。我们提出,这种缺陷源于预期姿势调整对 ISO 耦合的干扰作用。为了确定姿势调整是否会在其他类型的手臂周期性运动中区分 ISO 与 ANTI 耦合协调,我们检查了矢状面内的屈伸摆动。单独摆动右臂会在左侧三角肌前束和三角肌后束中引发周期性姿势调整(PA),这复制了主动肌右三角肌前束、右三角肌后束的兴奋-抑制模式。周期性 PA 也会在竖脊肌(RES 和 LES)中对称发展,并在臀大肌(RIC 和 LIC)中相位相反,从而向地面释放一个前后力 Fy 和一个关于垂直轴的力矩 Tz。双臂在 ISO 耦合中的摆动会在 ES 和 IC 肌肉中引发对称的 PA,从而产生较大的 Fy 但没有 Tz。在 ANTI 耦合中,RES 和 LES 的 PA 仍然对称,但幅度较小,而 RIC 和 LIC 的 PA 幅度较大且相位相反,导致较大的 Tz 和较小的 Fy。总之,PA 会促进 ISO 并阻碍 ANTI 矢状面运动,因为(1)在手臂主动肌的运动通路中,自愿指令和与另一只手臂运动相关的 PA 指令之间会发生会聚,这两个指令在 ISO 时具有相同的符号(兴奋或抑制),而在 ANTI 时则具有相反的符号;(2)在 ANTI 中产生 Tz 的姿势努力比在 ISO 中产生 Fy 的姿势努力要高。这些预测与以下发现相符,即在 ANTI 中耦合稳定性比在 ISO 中低,即与水平运动相反。总之,在矢状面和水平面手臂运动中,协调较差的耦合模式是通过上述两种机制通过姿势调整来约束的。