HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Free Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (41) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Schieber, M. H. Articles by Santello, M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Schieber, M. H. Articles by Santello, M.

INVITED REVIEW

HIGHLIGHTED TOPICS
Neural Control of Movement

Hand function: peripheral and central constraints on performance

¹Departments of Neurology and of Neurobiology and Anatomy and Brain Injury Rehabilitation Program at St. Mary's Hospital, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, New York 14642; and ²Department of Kinesiology and The Harrington Department of Bioengineering, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona 85287

	ABSTRACT

TOP ABSTRACT HAND BEHAVIOR CONSTRAINTS ARISING IN THE... CONSTRAINTS PRODUCED BY... STABILIZING CONTRACTIONS CONTROL OF THE HAND... CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE... ACKNOWLEDGMENTS REFERENCES

 
The hand is one of the most fascinating and sophisticated biological motor systems. The complex biomechanical and neural architecture of the hand poses challenging questions for understanding the control strategies that underlie the coordination of finger movements and forces required for a wide variety of behavioral tasks, ranging from multidigit grasping to the individuated movements of single digits. Hence, a number of experimental approaches, from studies of finger movement kinematics to the recording of electromyographic and cortical activities, have been used to extend our knowledge of neural control of the hand. Experimental evidence indicates that the simultaneous motion and force of the fingers are characterized by coordination patterns that reduce the number of independent degrees of freedom to be controlled. Peripheral and central constraints in the neuromuscular apparatus have been identified that may in part underlie these coordination patterns, simplifying the control of multi-digit grasping while placing certain limitations on individuation of finger movements. We review this evidence, with a particular emphasis on how these constraints extend through the neuromuscular system from the behavioral aspects of finger movements and forces to the control of the hand from the motor cortex.

finger; cortex; motor; muscle; tendon

	HAND BEHAVIOR

TOP ABSTRACT HAND BEHAVIOR CONSTRAINTS ARISING IN THE... CONSTRAINTS PRODUCED BY... STABILIZING CONTRACTIONS CONTROL OF THE HAND... CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE... ACKNOWLEDGMENTS REFERENCES

 
Hand use can be divided broadly into tasks requiring the use of multiple digits simultaneously in a grasp or the use of individuated movements in which one digit moves considerably more than other digits. The ability to make such varied use of the hand appears relatively late, both in evolution and in individual development. The appearance of multidigit grasping is followed by the appearance of individuated finger movements. Studies that have characterized the simultaneous motion or force production of the fingers indicate that, in grasping, the joints of multiple fingers are constrained to move or exert force in a relatively small number of coordination patterns (or "synergies"). Performance of more selective finger movements requires additional control to individuate the motion or force of particular digits.

Development of finger movements. Phylogenetically, although many amphibians and reptiles have forepaws with multiple digits, use of the hand for grasping appears only in mammals. Rats and cats adapt the orientation and shape of their forepaws when holding food (28, 97) but cannot grasp objects firmly without the use of both forepaws; they also do not use movements of single digits. Monkeys are able to grasp objects firmly with a single hand and can also winkle small objects from a narrow hole using relatively independent movements of a single finger (48); however, monkeys neither show the variety of grasps (58) nor show the sophisticated use of individuated finger movements observed in humans. A longer thumb relative to the length of the fingers and an ability to arch the palm of the hand are some of the most important anatomic differences underlying the more extensive range of grasp behavior found in humans (54).

Similarly, during human development, individuated movements of the fingers become superimposed on more fundamental grasping movements. Reflexive closure of the entire hand, which is present at birth, is followed by voluntary grasping at 2–3 mo of age. Thumb opposition and finger individuation start to appear at 10–12 mo, and further development of fine coordination between fingers, as well as between hand shaping and reaching, evolves throughout the first decade of life (27).

Multidigit coordination for grasping. Although primates have developed the ability to use individuated movements of single digits in special situations, most behavioral use of the hand, even in humans, entails simultaneous motion of multiple digits for one purpose: grasping. Although the final postures of the fingers as they are arrested at the surface of a solid object obviously conform to the shape of the object, the movements that close the fingers around an object in a coordinated fashion actually start long before contact. During reaching movements directed to objects with different shapes, the fingers move so as to gradually preshape the entire hand to approximate the object contours as the hand approaches (55, 73). Preshaping is affected little if at all by the removal of continuous vision of the hand and/or the object, indicating that stored information about the object is used to shape the hand in flight (69, 71, 75, 99). This simultaneous motion at all digits is characterized by consistent covariations in the simultaneous angular excursion at multiple finger joints (71); these covariation patterns are common to all subjects and are found across a large variety of object sizes and shapes. Similar kinematic coordination patterns have also been found when subjects were asked to mould their hand to the shape of the object without reaching (70, 72), although the extent to which hand shape resembled object shape was lower than when hand shaping occurred in a more natural fashion during the reach (73).

The coordination patterns used consistently during grasping have been examined with multivariate statistical techniques (71). Remarkably, only a small number of statistically identified kinematic coordination patterns [principal components or eigenpostures (55)] are required to reconstruct a large variety of natural hand postures. The hand coordination patterns found in grasping tasks seem to be organized along a gradient from lower to higher finger movement individuation. The lower order components are characterized by covariation in the motion at the metacarpophalangeal and proximal interphalangeal joints of all the fingers (70, 71, 89), which reflects the entire hand opening and closing as a unit. The higher order principal components represent coordination patterns needed to make fine adjustments of hand shape. Such observations of consistent coordination patterns across multiple finger joints, both within and across fingers, indicate that the number of independent degrees of freedom actively controlled during natural grasping is significantly lower than the available number of mechanical degrees of freedom. The kinematic coordination patterns revealed by multivariate statistical techniques, which reflect the net result of complex interactions between the simultaneous activation of many hand muscles and hand biomechanics, therefore may represent an important simplification of the computational processes needed to scale the entire hand shape to object geometry for grasping.

Once the hand is actually grasping an object, consistent coordination patterns also appear to characterize the control of grip forces, regardless of the number of digits used. During two-digit grasping, forces at the two digits normal and tangential to the object surface are finely coordinated throughout object lift and hold to maximize grasp stability (36). During grasping of vertically oriented objects with three digits, grasp stability is maintained by the constraint of the direction of forces toward the center of the object despite changes in object weight, roughness of contact surfaces, and finger combination (9, 23). In such a tripod grasp, the force exerted by the thumb is directed to a point approximately midway between the fingers despite changes in finger force directions induced by different configurations of the contact surfaces (2).

The temporal relationships between normal forces exerted by pairs of digits are also characterized by consistent coordination patterns; i.e., forces are synchronized across a variety of grasping task conditions (61–63, 74). However, these force synchronization patterns do not seem to be obligatory. Fingertip forces can be decoupled when required, as when one finger is released from an object during grasp (74). Furthermore, during multidigit force production without grasping, temporal relationships between pairs of fingertip forces are weaker than when forces must be coordinated to prevent object slip while holding an object (61).

Additional features of the organization of force coordination patterns have been revealed through analysis of the structure of the variability of individual finger forces when subjects hold an object vertically. When all digits are engaged in object lift and hold, subjects tend to use a few, repeatable force-sharing patterns (i.e., distributions of total force across the different digits) despite the large number of patterns that would satisfy the conditions of force and moment equilibrium (74). The force-sharing patterns employed during grasping appear to optimize control of certain higher level task parameters, such as grip force or hand torque, by constraint of the theoretically available variability in the forces exerted simultaneously by different fingers (52, 86, 100). Analysis of the structure of the variability of individual finger forces relative to the net rotational moment, for example, suggests that much of the apparent variation in individual finger forces is controlled actively across multiple digits to minimize the rotational moment of the hand about its longitudinal axis and stabilize the object held in the vertical (roll) dimension (47). Actions involving multiple digits could be controlled more efficiently by mechanisms that employ such hierarchical control strategies to take advantage of simultaneous action at several digits rather than by mechanisms that control each digit independently (51).

Individuated finger movements. In multidigit grasping, the coordination patterns that simplify the simultaneous control of numerous redundant degrees of freedom in the joints and/or muscles are supplemented by some degree of individuation. Some degree of finger individuation during grasping enables the hand to form to a specific object shape and permits some fingers to be lifted off the object while maintaining a stable grasp. During other types of hand use, such as tying a knot or fine manipulation of a small object, finger movements are individuated considerably more, although multiple fingers still tend to move together. Even during sophisticated tasks such as typing and piano playing, which typically are conceptualized as sequential movements of single fingers, kinematic studies have revealed that all the fingers of the hand are in motion simultaneously at the time of individual keystrokes (18, 22, 24, 89). Elegant performance is achieved nevertheless because these tasks require not that only one finger move but instead that one finger move enough to strike the intended key while the other fingers move little enough not to strike any unintended keys. Similarly in finger spelling, although some digits move together, information can be transmitted clearly by the configurations of certain critical digits (35).

As in grasping, multivariate statistical analyses have shown consistent coordination patterns in the simultaneous motion of multiple digits during piano playing (16), typing (20, 25, 26, 68, 69), and finger spelling (34, 35). As in hand shaping for grasping (see above), adjacent digits tend to be more highly correlated than nonadjacent digits. Interestingly, in typing, the correlation in the movement of pairs of fingers does not seem to be obligatory, as the correlation between fingers is weaker when one of the fingers is used to press the key than when neither finger of the pair is acting on a key (22). This implies that neural control allows adjacent fingers to move together when they are not acting on keys but actively dissociates them when one must act without the other.

Even when subjects are not asked to perform a natural or trained behavior but instead are asked explicitly to move a single digit or to exert force voluntarily with a single digit, motion or force occurs at other digits as well (64, 102). In both monkeys and humans, the thumb and the index finger have the greatest degree of independence in such tasks, whereas the middle and ring fingers have the lowest (29, 77). Humans, however, show a higher degree of movement individuation than that observed in monkeys.

When human subjects are asked to exert maximal voluntary force with one digit, the forces produced unintentionally by fingers not explicitly involved in the voluntary task (termed "force enslaving") can reach amplitudes up to 50% of the force produced by the instructed digit (101, 102). In an experimental protocol designed to dissociate, as far as possible, the action of superficial extrinsic flexors, deep extrinsic flexors, and intrinsic hand muscles, force enslaving was similar regardless of the muscle groups involved (102), suggesting that force enslaving cannot be ascribed solely to biomechanical constraints (such as mechanical coupling between the muscles acting on different digits, which is stronger for the extrinsic muscles). Instead, it must have some origin in the neural control of the hand. Interpretation of the similarity in the magnitude of force enslaving across extrinsic and intrinsic conditions is complicated, however, by the possibility that both sets of muscles were coactivated in all experimental conditions. Indeed, electromyograph (EMG) studies of hand muscles during force-production tasks have shown that significant cocontraction of extrinsic and intrinsic hand muscles does occur during single fingertip force production (57, 94).

Control of force at a single fingertip. The problem of multiple, potentially redundant degrees of freedom appears again in the muscular control of force at a single fingertip. Because many intrinsic and extrinsic hand muscles insert on each digit (e.g., 7 muscles acting on the index finger), the contribution of each muscle to the net force exerted at a given fingertip could vary substantially, both from trial-to-trial and when scaling fingertip forces to different magnitudes. This raises the question of whether individual hand muscles are activated independently or together as functional units, which has been tested experimentally by correlating the level of EMG activation of pairs of muscles when scaling fingertip force. During force production in precision grip, although the muscles were not found to be activated completely independently of each other, correlations in both the temporal and spatial domains described initially were weak and highly variable, both within and across subjects (53). In other words, the EMG amplitude of a given hand muscle was not constrained to covary consistently with the EMG amplitude of other hand muscles, suggesting that subjects may not rely on repeatable patterns of hand muscle activation.

Subsequent studies of EMG activity during precision grip, however, reported contrasting results. Maximal index fingertip forces were measured in four directions (i.e., flexion, extension, abduction, and adduction), isolating specific force components associated with EMG patterns in the amplitude domain. This revealed subject-independent EMG amplitude patterns in the intrinsic and extrinsic hand muscles for all force directions, patterns that were repeatable across trials (94). Similar results were obtained in a submaximal force-production task (92). Interestingly, the relative activity among contributing muscles did not change when fingertip force magnitude was modulated across the submaximal voluntary force range. Hence, the apparent redundancy of many equally valid solutions (i.e., muscle activity patterns) for the production of fingertip forces becomes reduced to a single, specific ratio of muscle contractions constraining multiple muscles to act together as a unit when precise control of force direction is required. The unique ratio of activity in multiple muscles used to exert varying levels of precisely directed fingertip force might appear to contradict other evidence that highly individuated movements reflect a greater variety of coordination patterns. Even when precisely directing fingertip forces, however, any change in finger joint angle will require a corresponding change in the ratio of muscle activity.

To summarize, most of the time, the human hand is used for grasping objects. In grasping, a number of coordination patterns have been identified that might simplify the control of the large number of mechanical degrees of freedom and muscles of the hand. These coordination patterns emerge as kinematic and kinetic relationships among the simultaneous motion and/or force of multiple fingers, ensuring that the fundamental task of grasping can be performed simply, frequently, and reliably. As the hand is used for increasingly fine manipulation and as more and more fine finger movements are considered, the need for independent control of individual degrees of freedom increases. Each degree of freedom becomes necessary for some particular manipulative finger movement. Higher order principal components are needed to describe the increasingly individuated motion of the fingers, and a limited set of coordination patterns constraining the behavior of multiple degrees of freedom becomes less helpful as a control strategy. The same underlying constraints that are important for simplifying the control of fundamental multidigit grasping may then limit the independence of the fingers in fine, manipulative performance, whether the constraints arise biomechanically in the peripheral apparatus or through neural control.

	CONSTRAINTS ARISING IN THE PERIPHERAL APPARATUS

TOP ABSTRACT HAND BEHAVIOR CONSTRAINTS ARISING IN THE... CONSTRAINTS PRODUCED BY... STABILIZING CONTRACTIONS CONTROL OF THE HAND... CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE... ACKNOWLEDGMENTS REFERENCES

 
To what extent does the simultaneous motion of multiple fingers result from biomechanical constraints in the periphery? The fingers are coupled to a measurable degree by a number of biomechanical factors. Some degree of mechanical coupling between adjacent digits is produced by the soft tissues in the web spaces between the fingers (95). Additional coupling is produced by interconnections between the tendons of certain muscles. In humans, the juncturae tendinium between the different finger tendons of extensor digitorum communis (EDC) are well known (96), although a recent study that used intramuscular electrical stimulation indicates that, under typical conditions, the juncturae of EDC may transmit relatively little tension from one tendon to another (39). The tendons of flexor digitorum profundus (FDP) to the four different fingers are also interconnected in the palm, both by thin sheets of inelastic connective tissue and by the origins of the lumbrical muscles (19). In macaque monkeys, these interconnections between the tendons of multitendoned muscles are more pronounced than in humans (85). In the macaque FDP, tendon interconnections have been shown to cause tension exerted at one point on the proximal aponeurosis of the insertion tendon to be distributed to the distal insertions on multiple digits (82). Such species differences in the biomechanical coupling between tendons to adjacent fingers contribute to greater ability of humans to individuate their finger movements and forces.

The multitendoned extrinsic finger muscles (flexor digitorum superficialis, FDP, and EDC) present another potential form of biomechanical coupling. If single motor units have muscle fibers that insert on tendons to adjacent digits, then these motor units will act on both digits simultaneously when they contract. In macaque monkeys, another multitendoned muscle, extensor digiti quarti et quinti, has a significant fraction of single motor units that act on both the ring and little finger tendons (81). In humans, the homologous muscle, extensor digiti quinti, has no tendon to the ring finger and acts exclusively on the little finger, eliminating any coupling that might be produced by motor units acting on both tendons. However, in other human multitendoned muscles, including FDP and EDC, the contraction of many single motor units is statistically associated with a rise in force on more than one finger (39, 41). The extent to which the multidigit effects of these motor units result from physical distribution of tension to adjacent or interconnected tendons vs. synchronized contraction of two motor units each acting on a single digit is presently the subject of active investigation.

	CONSTRAINTS PRODUCED BY INNERVATION OF SPINAL MOTONEURON POOLS

TOP ABSTRACT HAND BEHAVIOR CONSTRAINTS ARISING IN THE... CONSTRAINTS PRODUCED BY... STABILIZING CONTRACTIONS CONTROL OF THE HAND... CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE... ACKNOWLEDGMENTS REFERENCES

 
Short-term synchronization that may functionally couple motor units acting on different digits can be found between many but not all pairs of motor units in the same muscle or in different muscles (6, 31). The two motor units of a synchronized pair discharge more action potentials within a few milliseconds of one another than can be accounted for by chance alone, implying that the two motor units receive a common neural input that excites the two simultaneously. For two motor units in the same muscle, synchronization can be attributed to axons that ramify within the spinal motoneuron pool, synapsing on multiple motoneurons serving the same muscle. Synchronization between muscles acting on different fingers or between motor units in regions of multitendoned muscles serving different fingers, however, indicates that single premotor input neurons make connections to motoneuron pools or subpools that act on different fingers. These diverging premotor input neurons may produce part of the "spillover" that causes adjacent fingers to move when a normal subject voluntarily moves a given finger. Indeed, EMG studies have shown that, during flexion of a given finger, EMG activity appears not only in the region of FDP acting on that finger but also in regions acting on adjacent fingers (40, 66). Theoretically, the premotoneurons responsible for short-term synchronization of motor units could be any last-order inputs to the motoneuron pools, such as Ia afferents, spinal interneurons, or corticomotoneuronal axons. In humans, lesions of the corticospinal system eliminate the majority of short-term synchronization between motor units, implying that most of the synchronizing input comes from the cortex itself (14, 20).

Ongoing investigations of between-compartment motor-unit synchronization suggest possible differences in the organization of common inputs to the multitendoned finger flexors vs. extensors, which might in part reflect differences in their functional roles in manipulative actions. Between-compartment synchronization of motor units in EDC is weaker than within-compartment synchronization, indicating that common inputs are stronger to motoneurons acting on the same digit than those common inputs that diverge to motoneurons acting on different digits (38). In FDP, however, during a force-production task, the strength of synchrony between motor units belonging to the same compartment is similar to that found between adjacent compartments but greater than the strength of synchrony between motor units in nonadjacent compartments (e.g., index-little or index-ring) (65). These observations suggest that last-order inputs may constrain FDP, more so than EDC, to act to some degree simultaneously on adjacent fingers.

This trend in FDP was not as clear, however, when fingertip forces were required to prevent object slip during multidigit grasping (98). Indeed, because short-term synchronization reflects the pattern of active last-order inputs to motoneuron pools, synchronization might be expected to vary depending on the task being performed. When finger forces were exerted in different directions, short-term synchronization differed for motor unit pairs within the same intrinsic hand muscle as well as for pairs having one motor unit in each of two different intrinsic muscles (5). Similarly, higher degrees of synchronization have been observed during power grip than during precision grip, suggesting that power grip involving the entire hand might benefit from a common action at all fingers facilitated by motor unit synchronization, whereas precision grip would require a higher degree of independence in the movement of individual fingers and therefore less synchronization (30).

	STABILIZING CONTRACTIONS

TOP ABSTRACT HAND BEHAVIOR CONSTRAINTS ARISING IN THE... CONSTRAINTS PRODUCED BY... STABILIZING CONTRACTIONS CONTROL OF THE HAND... CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE... ACKNOWLEDGMENTS REFERENCES

 
Because of both the biomechanical coupling between digits produced by the peripheral apparatus and the neural coupling arising from divergent last-order inputs to motoneuron pools, muscle activity intended to move one digit will tend to move adjacent digits as well. To move one digit more individually, additional muscles may be activated to check the coupled motion of the adjacent digits. Such stabilizing contractions have been observed in the EMG activity of finger muscles in both monkeys and humans. When a monkey flexes its little finger, for example, extensor digiti secundi et tertii contracts to minimize simultaneous flexion of the index and middle fingers (78). In humans, the portion of FDP that acts chiefly on the middle finger contracts as the subject extends either the index or the ring finger, apparently to minimize coupled extension of the middle finger (66). The combination of contractions that move the intended finger(s) and that stabilize other fingers to minimize unintended motion in other digits requires descending neural control more complex than alternating activation of agonists and antagonists.

	CONTROL OF THE HAND FROM THE MOTOR CORTEX

TOP ABSTRACT HAND BEHAVIOR CONSTRAINTS ARISING IN THE... CONSTRAINTS PRODUCED BY... STABILIZING CONTRACTIONS CONTROL OF THE HAND... CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE... ACKNOWLEDGMENTS REFERENCES

 
The primary motor cortex (M1) and its descending projection to the spinal cord in the corticospinal tract (CST) are crucial for the normal control of hand and finger movements. In humans, lesions of these neural structures result in the syndrome of hemiparesis, in which voluntary effort produces sluggish, weakened movements. In addition, hemiparetic movements are less individuated. Attempts to move or exert force with a single finger result in simultaneous action of all the fingers, and attempts to grasp an object with the hand may result in simultaneous motion at the elbow and shoulder (8, 46, 50, 91). In monkeys, CST lesions produce a more transient weakness, although a persistent inability to perform fine, relatively independent finger movements also occurs (49). Similar deficits are observed temporarily during reversible inactivation of the monkey M1 hand representation (7, 44, 84). These observations suggest that noncorticospinal descending pathways are capable of generating more rudimentary, less individuated movements, whereas the output of M1 normally acts, largely via the CST, both to facilitate contraction of those muscles actively generating the intended movement and to suppress unintended motion of other body parts. In this respect, M1 somehow reduces constraints, acting to fractionate the more limited set of coordination patterns that can be produced by other parts of the nervous system (76).

The organization of M1, with both divergence and convergence of its corticospinal output, provides a neural substrate for the control of such complex movements. Many M1 neurons have outputs that diverge to innervate the spinal motoneuron pools of several forearm and intrinsic hand muscles (10, 21, 87, 88). Spike-triggered averaging of EMG activity shows that M1 neurons may have either facilitatory or suppressive effects on the motoneuron pools of different muscles. (Because M1 output neurons all are excitatory, suppressive effects on motoneurons are exerted via inhibitory interneurons.) Some M1 neurons that project to wrist and finger muscles also produce effects in elbow and/or shoulder muscles (56). Single M1 neurons thus may influence the activity of multiple muscles used simultaneously in a particular task. Indeed, small groups of M1 neurons with outputs to similar sets of muscles are found close to one another (12, 13) and may show increased synchronization with one another (33). Via their monosynaptic connections to spinal motoneurons, such M1 neurons may produce much of the short-term synchronization between motor units described above.

These corticomotoneuronal connections that diverge from single M1 neurons to innervate multiple motoneuron pools thus may appear to constrain the independence of activity in different muscles. How then could M1 act to provide increased individuation of finger movements? Divergent corticomotoneuronal output connections would reduce independence if only a limited number of output patterns to various sets of muscles were present. Such might be the case in lower mammals, such as rats and cats. As nonhuman primates and humans evolved, however, different M1 neurons may have dropped their output connections to different muscles, resulting in an extremely large variety of different muscle combinations controlled by various M1 neurons. Such a wide variety of available output combinations would permit extensive individuation of finger movements and forces when needed.

Besides having divergent outputs, M1 neurons that provide input to any given muscle are distributed over a relatively large cortical territory (typically a few millimeters in diameter in nonhuman primates) (45), and the territory providing input to one muscle overlaps extensively with the territory providing input to other muscles (1, 16). Because outputs to a given muscle converge from an extensive M1 territory, because outputs from single M1 neurons diverge to multiple muscles, and because peripheral constraints require stabilization of other digits during individuated movement of a single digit, active neurons are found throughout the M1 hand representation when any single finger is moved, and similar territories are activated for movements of different fingers. In monkeys, single M1 neurons discharge in relation to multiple finger and wrist movements (83). Often, a given neuron discharges in relation to movements of nonadjacent digits. The distribution of neurons active during movements of particular digits gives little if any evidence of somatotopic segregation of neurons controlling different digits. Horizontal intracortical axon collaterals that interconnect the entire M1 hand representation (32), therefore, may coordinate the necessary pattern of outputs to multiple muscles simultaneously. Similarly in humans, functional magnetic resonance imaging shows that a similar cortical territory is activated no matter which digit is moved (68). In humans, however, subtraction of the widespread activation common to all finger movements leaves a remainder of specific activation for each digit; this remainder shows some degree of somatotopic segregation for movements of different digits (3, 43).

A somewhat greater somatotopic gradient of digit representation in human M1 than in macaque M1 is suggested as well by the effects of lesions. In macaque M1, partial inactivation of the hand representation impaired some finger movements and not others, but adjacent fingers were not affected more readily than nonadjacent fingers, and the finger movements that were affected were not systematically related to the mediolateral location of the inactivation (84). In humans, however, small strokes can impair the thumb and index finger more than the little and ring fingers or vice versa (79). Moreover, the thumb and index finger are impaired more severely by more lateral lesions, and the little and ring fingers are more impaired by more medial lesions (42). These lesion studies, as well as the studies of neural activity described above, thus suggest that a somatotopic gradient of digit representation, with the thumb represented more heavily laterally and the little finger represented more heavily medially, is present in the human M1 but is not so evident in the macaque M1 hand representation. This species difference in M1 parallels the other species differences described above: humans can produce more highly individuated finger movements than macaque monkeys and have less biomechanical coupling between the digits. Together, these observations suggest that evolution of more highly individuated finger movements, resulting in part from evolution of more mechanically independent digits (reducing the need to stabilize other digits during individuated movement of a given digit), has proceeded in parallel with evolution of somatotopic gradients of digit representation in the human M1.

Divergence of output from single M1 neurons to multiple muscles, convergence of output from large cortical territories onto individual muscles, horizontal interconnections, and widespread activation in the M1 hand representation during movement of a single finger all constrain the degree to which the control of finger movements can be explained by selective activation of somatotopically organized regions of cortex. Although not somatotopically organized to represent different fingers, M1 neuronal populations do transmit firing rate information specifying which finger movement is made. Population analyses that used population vector or logistic regression approaches have shown that the discharge of M1 neurons transmits information that specifies which finger movement will be performed (4, 25). Without being arranged somatotopically, how could a population of M1 neurons generate the various patterns of concurrent activity in multiple muscles needed to produce specific finger movements?

One possibility would be that groups of similar neurons controlling particular movements or subsets of movements are present, but the members of each group are spatially distributed throughout the M1 hand representation. Cluster analysis has been used to search populations of M1 neurons for such groups of functionally similar neurons (60). In three monkeys, however, cluster analysis revealed only two consistent groups of M1 neurons. A relatively large group consisted of neurons that increased discharge during most if not all finger and wrist movements; another small group decreased discharge during most movements. These two groups were found in all three monkeys, were robust against changing the method of quantifying neuronal activity or changing the clustering algorithm, and were not reproduced when the data were randomly reshuffled. In contrast, small groups of neurons that discharged during particular subsets of finger and wrist movements varied from monkey to monkey, changed when the means of quantifying neuronal activity or the clustering algorithm was changed, and appeared in randomly reshuffled data. This analysis indicated that, even for a set of 12 distinct individuated finger and wrist movements, the number of different activity patterns found among M1 neurons may be large relative to the number of movements observed. M1 neurons appear to be functionally quite diverse.

These observations in turn suggest that the connections from M1 to motoneuron pools function as a network. M1 neurons then could be quite diverse, without categorical groups of similar neurons. M1 neurons could be diverse both in terms of the particular motoneuron pools to which they connect and in terms of their activity patterns across a set of movements. Activity of a selected subset of M1 output neurons could facilitate activation of the correct motoneuron pools for a given movement. Such a widely distributed network of diverse elements would provide a flexible substrate for practice-driven plastic reorganization, advantageous both for the motor skill learning needed to play a musical instrument and for functional recovery after nervous system injury (11, 59, 67, 80).

Future work may delineate how a network of functionally diverse M1 neurons can control generation of specific hand and finger movements. A network of intermingled and overlapping representations may be able to control the biomechanically coupled peripheral apparatus of the hand more efficiently than a network of discrete, spatially segregated nodes. Because the fingers are biomechanically coupled at the periphery, independent neural controllers for each digit would need to communicate extensively to accomplish the required control of all the fingers simultaneously. This communication may be more efficient when the controllers are intermingled and overlapping than when they are separate. Segregation of the controllers then would become more efficient as the peripheral elements become more biomechanically independent, as seen for the M1 representations of the face vs. hand. Evolution of increasingly independent digits thus may be paralleled by evolution of increasing separate M1 representations.

	CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

TOP ABSTRACT HAND BEHAVIOR CONSTRAINTS ARISING IN THE... CONSTRAINTS PRODUCED BY... STABILIZING CONTRACTIONS CONTROL OF THE HAND... CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE... ACKNOWLEDGMENTS REFERENCES

 
The complexity of the hand's neural and biomechanical architecture underlies its ability to grasp, manipulate, and perform complex tasks, such as typing, by using a very large number of hand configurations. The study of tasks requiring individuated finger movement or forces has revealed that finger independence has limitations. Both biomechanical and neural factors constrain the extent to which individual fingers can be controlled independently of the others. Mechanical coupling between neuromuscular compartments serving different fingers, short-term synchrony between motor units acting on different fingers, and the broader central coactivation of hand muscles all appear to limit independent action of the fingers. Even more limited degrees of movement and force individuation become evident in tasks such as whole hand grasping, which requires the coordination of multiple fingers. In these circumstances, the relationships among the large number of degrees of freedom of the hand become constrained to a limited number of coordination patterns. Lack of complete finger individuation and partial biomechanical coupling are paralleled by the lack of a discrete somatotopy in the cortical hand area. The divergence of M1 neuron output to multiple hand muscles as well as the convergence of output from large cortical territories to individual muscles highlight the complexity of the input-output relationship between the motor cortex and the control of the hand. Finger movements are controlled by a highly distributed network rather than by functionally and spatially discrete groups of neurons controlling each finger.

Further research will be needed to better understand both the peripheral apparatus that operates the hand and the central neural systems that control it. Understanding control of the hand may find application in hand surgery (93), in rehabilitation for functional recovery after hand reattachment or transplantation surgery (17, 26, 37), as well as after stroke or other central lesions (46, 50). Design and implementation of neural prostheses (15, 90) that might drive functional electrical stimulation to restore hand function after spinal cord injury would also be facilitated by more detailed knowledge of the hand's normal biological control. And finally, the advantages provided by the biological system may provide insights for engineering more dexterous robotic hands.

	ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

TOP ABSTRACT HAND BEHAVIOR CONSTRAINTS ARISING IN THE... CONSTRAINTS PRODUCED BY... STABILIZING CONTRACTIONS CONTROL OF THE HAND... CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE... ACKNOWLEDGMENTS REFERENCES

 
GRANTS

This work was supported by R01/R37-NS-27686 and R01-NS-36341 (M. H. Schieber) from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, BCS-0225611 (M. H. Schieber) from the National Science Foundation, and R01-AR-47301 (M. Santello) from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases.

	FOOTNOTES

 

Address for reprint requests and other correspondence: M. H. Schieber, Univ. of Rochester Medical Center, Dept. of Neurology, 601 Elmwood Ave., Box 673, Rochester, NY 14642 (E-mail: mhs{at}cvs.rochester.edu).

	REFERENCES

TOP ABSTRACT HAND BEHAVIOR CONSTRAINTS ARISING IN THE... CONSTRAINTS PRODUCED BY... STABILIZING CONTRACTIONS CONTROL OF THE HAND... CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE... ACKNOWLEDGMENTS REFERENCES

 

1. Andersen P, Hagan PJ, Phillips CG, and Powell TP. Mapping by microstimulation of overlapping projections from area 4 to motor units of the baboon's hand. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 188: 31-36, 1975.[Medline]
2. Baud-Bovy G and Soechting JF. Factors influencing variability in load forces in a tripod grasp. Exp Brain Res 143: 57-66, 2002.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
3. Beisteiner R, Windischberger C, Lanzenberger R, Edward V, Cunnington R, Erdler M, Gartus A, Streibl B, Moser E, and Deecke L. Finger somatotopy in human motor cortex. Neuroimage 13: 1016-1026, 2001.[Web of Science][Medline]
4. Ben Hamed S, Schieber MH, and Pouget A. Decoding M1 neuron activity during multiple finger movements. Soc Neurosci Abstr 27: 289.2, 2001.
5. Bremner FD, Baker JR, and Stephens JA. Effect of task on the degree of synchronization of intrinsic hand muscle motor units in man. J Neurophysiol 66: 2072-2083, 1991.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
6. Bremner FD, Baker JR, and Stephens JA. Variation in the degree of synchronization exhibited by motor units lying in different finger muscles in man. J Physiol 432: 381-399, 1991.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
7. Brochier T, Boudreau MJ, Paré M, and Smith AM. The effects of muscimol inactivation of small regions of motor and somatosensory cortex on independent finger movements and force control in the precision grip. Exp Brain Res 128: 31-40, 1999.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
8. Brunstrom S. Movement Therapy in Hemiplegia: A Neurophysiological Approach. New York: Harper & Row, 1970.
9. Burstedt MK, Flanagan JR, and Johansson RS. Control of grasp stability in humans under different frictional conditions during multidigit manipulation. J Neurophysiol 82: 2393-2405, 1999.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
10. Buys EJ, Lemon RN, Mantel GW, and Muir RB. Selective facilitation of different hand muscles by single corticospinal neurones in the conscious monkey. J Physiol 381: 529-549, 1986.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
11. Chen R, Cohen LG, and Hallett M. Nervous system reorganization following injury. Neuroscience 111: 761-773, 2002.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
12. Cheney PD and Fetz EE. Comparable patterns of muscle facilitation evoked by individual corticomotoneuronal (CM) cells and by single intracortical microstimuli in primates: evidence for functional groups of CM cells. J Neurophysiol 53: 786-804, 1985.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
13. Cheney PD, Fetz EE, and Palmer SS. Patterns of facilitation and suppression of antagonist forelimb muscles from motor cortex sites in the awake monkey. J Neurophysiol 53: 805-820, 1985.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
14. Datta AK, Farmer SF, and Stephens JA. Central nervous pathways underlying synchronization of human motor unit firing studied during voluntary contractions. J Physiol 432: 401-425, 1991.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
15. Donoghue JP. Connecting cortex to machines: recent advances in brain interfaces. Nat Neurosci Suppl 5: 1085-1088, 2002.[CrossRef]
16. Donoghue JP, Leibovic S, and Sanes JN. Organization of the forelimb area in squirrel monkey motor cortex: representation of digit, wrist, and elbow muscles. Exp Brain Res 89: 1-19, 1992.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
17. Dubernard JM, Petruzzo P, Lanzetta M, Parmentier H, Martin X, Dawahra M, Hakim NS, and Owen E. Functional results of the first human double-hand transplantation. Ann Surg 238: 128-136, 2003.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
18. Engel KC, Flanders M, and Soechting JF. Anticipatory and sequential motor control in piano playing. Exp Brain Res 113: 189-199, 1997.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
19. Fahrer M. Interdependent and independent actions of the fingers. In: The Hand, edited by Tubania R. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 1981, p. 399-403.
20. Farmer SF, Swash M, Ingram DA, and Stephens JA. Changes in motor unit synchronization following central nervous lesions in man. J Physiol 463: 83-105, 1993.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
21. Fetz EE and Cheney PD. Postspike facilitation of forelimb muscle activity by primate corticomotoneuronal cells. J Neurophysiol 44: 751-772, 1980.[Free Full Text]
22. Fish J and Soechting JF. Synergistic finger movements in a skilled motor task. Exp Brain Res 91: 327-334, 1992.[Web of Science][Medline]
23. Flanagan JR, Burstedt MK, and Johansson RS. Control of fingertip forces in multidigit manipulation. J Neurophysiol 81: 1706-1717, 1999.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
24. Flanders M and Soechting JF. Kinematics of typing: parallel control of the two hands. J Neurophysiol 67: 1264-1274, 1992.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
25. Georgopoulos AP, Pellizzer G, Poliakov AV, and Schieber MH. Neural coding of finger and wrist movements. J Comput Neurosci 6: 279-288, 1999.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
26. Giraux P, Sirigu A, Schneider F, and Dubernard JM. Cortical reorganization in motor cortex after graft of both hands. Nat Neurosci 4: 691-692, 2001.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
27. Gordon AM. Development of hand motor control. In: Handbook of Brain and Behaviour in Human Development, edited by Kalverboer AF and Gramsbergen A. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic, 2001, p. 513-537.
28. Gorska T and Sybirska E. Effects of pyramidal lesions on forelimb movements in the cat. Acta Neurobiol Exp (Warsz) 40: 843-859, 1980.[Medline]
29. Hager-Ross CK and Schieber MH. Quantifying the independence of human finger movements: Comparisons of digits, hands and movement frequencies. J Neurosci 20: 8542-8550, 2000.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
30. Huesler EJ, Hepp-Reymond MC, and Dietz V. Task dependence of muscle synchronization in human hand muscles. Neuroreport 9: 2167-2170, 1998.[Web of Science][Medline]
31. Huesler EJ, Maier MA, and Hepp-Reymond MC. EMG activation patterns during force production in precision grip. III. Synchronisation of single motor units. Exp Brain Res 134: 441-455, 2000.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
32. Huntley GW and Jones EG. Relationship of intrinsic connections to forelimb movement representations in monkey motor cortex: a correlative anatomic and physiological study. J Neurophysiol 66: 390-413, 1991.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
33. Jackson A, Gee VJ, Baker SN, and Lemon RN. Synchrony between neurons with similar muscle fields in monkey motor cortex. Neuron 38: 115-125, 2003.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
34. Jerde TE, Soechting JF, and Flanders M. Biological constraints simplify the recognition of hand shapes. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 50: 265-269, 2003.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
35. Jerde TE, Soechting JF, and Flanders M. Coarticulation in fluent fingerspelling. J Neurosci 23: 2383-2393, 2003.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
36. Johansson RS and Cole KJ. Grasp stability during manipulative actions. Can J Physiol Pharmacol 72: 511-524, 1994.[Web of Science][Medline]
37. Jones NF. Concerns about human hand transplantation in the 21st century. J Hand Surg [Am] 27: 771-787, 2002.[CrossRef][Medline]
38. Keen DA and Fuglevand AJ. Common input to motor neurons innervating the same and different compartments of the human extensor digitorum muscle. J Neurophysiol 91: 57-102, 2004.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
39. Keen DA and Fuglevand AJ. Role of intertendinous connections in distribution of force in human extensor digitorum. Muscle Nerve 28: 614-622, 2003.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
40. Kilbreath SL and Gandevia SC. Limited independent flexion of the thumb and fingers in human subjects. J Physiol 479: 487-497, 1994.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
41. Kilbreath SL, Gorman RB, Raymond J, and Gandevia SC. Distribution of the forces produced by motor unit activity in the human flexor digitorum profundus. J Physiol 543: 289-296, 2002.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
42. Kim JS. Predominant involvement of a particular group of fingers due to small, cortical infarction. Neurology 56: 1677-1682, 2001.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
43. Kleinschmidt A, Nitschke MF, and Frahm J. Somatotopy in the human motor cortex hand area. A high-resolution functional MRI study. Eur J Neurosci 9: 2178-2186, 1997.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
44. Kubota K. Motor cortical muscimol injection disrupts forelimb movement in freely moving monkeys. Neuroreport 7: 2379-2384, 1996.[Web of Science][Medline]
45. Landgren S, Phillips CG, and Porter R. Cortical fields of origin of the monosynaptic pyramidal pathways to some alpha motoneurones of the baboon's hand and forearm. J Physiol 161: 112-125, 1962.[Free Full Text]
46. Lang CE and Schieber MH. Differential impairment of individuated finger movements in humans after damage to the motor cortex or the corticospinal tract. J Neurophysiol 90: 1160-1170, 2003.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
47. Latash ML, Scholz JP, and Schoner G. Motor control strategies revealed in the structure of motor variability. Exerc Sport Sci Rev 30: 26-31, 2002.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
48. Lawrence DG and Hopkins DA. The development of motor control in the rhesus monkey: evidence concerning the role of corticomotoneuronal connections. Brain 99: 235-254, 1976.[Free Full Text]
49. Lawrence DG and Kuypers HG. The functional organization of the motor system in the monkey. I. The effects of bilateral pyramidal lesions. Brain 91: 1-14, 1968.[Free Full Text]
50. Li S, Latash ML, Yue GH, Siemionow V, and Sahgal V. The effects of stroke and age on finger interaction in multi-finger force production tasks. Clin Neurophysiol 114: 1646-1655, 2003.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
51. Li ZM, Latash ML, Newell KM, and Zatsiorsky VM. Motor redundancy during maximal voluntary contraction in four-finger tasks. Exp Brain Res 122: 71-78, 1998.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
52. Li ZM, Latash ML, and Zatsiorsky VM. Force sharing among fingers as a model of the redundancy problem. Exp Brain Res 119: 276-286, 1998.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
53. Maier MA and Hepp-Reymond MC. EMG activation patterns during force production in precision grip. II. Muscular synergies in the spatial and temporal domain. Exp Brain Res 103: 123-136, 1995.[Web of Science][Medline]
54. Marzke MW and Marzke RF. Evolution of the human hand: approaches to acquiring, analysing and interpreting the anatomical evidence. J Anat 197: 121-140, 2000.
55. Mason CR, Gomez JE, and Ebner TJ. Hand synergies during reach-to-grasp. J Neurophysiol 86: 2896-2910, 2001.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
56. McKiernan BJ, Marcario JK, Karrer JH, and Cheney PD. Corticomotoneuronal postspike effects in shoulder, elbow, wrist, digit, and intrinsic hand muscles during a reach and prehension task. J Neurophysiol 80: 1961-1980, 1998.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
57. Milner TE and Dhaliwal SS. Activation of intrinsic and extrinsic finger muscles in relation to the fingertip force vector. Exp Brain Res 146: 197-204, 2002.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
58. Napier JR. The prehensile movements of the human hand. J Bone Joint Surg Br 38: 902-913, 1956.
59. Nudo RJ. Adaptive plasticity in motor cortex: implications for rehabilitation after brain injury. J Rehabil Med 7-10, 2003.
60. Poliakov AV and Schieber MH. Limited functional grouping of neurons in the motor cortex hand area during individuated finger movements: a cluster analysis. J Neurophysiol 82: 3488-3505, 1999.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
61. Rearick MP, Casares A, and Santello M. Task-dependent modulation of multi-digit force coordination patterns. J Neurophysiol 89: 1317-1326, 2003.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
62. Rearick MP and Santello M. Force synergies for multifingered grasping: effect of predictability in object center of mass and handedness. Exp Brain Res 144: 38-49, 2002.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
63. Rearick MP, Stelmach GE, Leis B, and Santello M. Coordination and control of forces during multifingered grasping in Parkinson's disease. Exp Neurol 177: 428-442, 2002.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
64. Reilly KT and Hammond GR. Independence of force production by digits of the human hand. Neurosci Lett 290: 53-56, 2000.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
65. Reilly KT, Nordstrom MA, and Schieber MH. Short-term synchronization between motor units in different functional subdivisions of the human flexor digitorum profundus muscle. J Neurophysiol In press.
66. Reilly KT and Schieber MH. Incomplete functional subdivision of the human multitendoned finger muscle flexor digitorum profundus: an electromyographic study. J Neurophysiol 90: 2560-2570, 2003.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
67. Sanes JN and Donoghue JP. Plasticity and primary motor cortex. Annu Rev Neurosci 23: 393-415, 2000.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
68. Sanes JN, Donoghue JP, Thangaraj V, Edelman RR, and Warach S. Shared neural substrates controlling hand movements in human motor cortex. Science 268: 1775-1777, 1995.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
69. Santello M. Kinematic synergies for the control of hand shape. Arch Ital Biol 140: 221-228, 2002.[Web of Science][Medline]
70. Santello M, Flanders M, and Soechting JF. Postural hand synergies for tool use. J Neurosci 18: 10105-10115, 1998.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
71. Santello M, Flanders M, and Soechting JF. Patterns of hand motion during grasping and the influence of sensory guidance. J Neurosci 22: 1426-1435, 2002.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
72. Santello M and Soechting JF. Matching object size by controlling finger span and hand shape. Somatosens Mot Res 14: 203-212, 1997.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
73. Santello M and Soechting JF. Gradual molding of the hand to object contours. J Neurophysiol 79: 1307-1320, 1998.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
74. Santello M and Soechting JF. Force synergies for multifingered grasping. Exp Brain Res 133: 457-467, 2000.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
75. Schettino LF, Adamovich SV, and Poizner H. Effects of object shape and visual feedback on hand configuration during grasping. Exp Brain Res 151: 158-166, 2003.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
76. Schieber MH. How might the motor cortex individuate movements? Trends Neurosci 13: 440-445, 1990.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
77. Schieber MH. Individuated finger movements of rhesus monkeys: a means of quantifying the independence of the digits. J Neurophysiol 65: 1381-1391, 1991.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
78. Schieber MH. Muscular production of individuated finger movements: the roles of extrinsic finger muscles. J Neurosci 15: 284-297, 1995.[Abstract]
79. Schieber MH. Somatotopic gradients in the distributed organization of the human primary motor cortex hand area: evidence from small infarcts. Exp Brain Res 128: 139-148, 1999.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
80. Schieber MH. Constraints on somatotopic organization in the primary motor cortex. J Neurophysiol 86: 2125-2143, 2001.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
81. Schieber MH, Chua M, Petit J, and Hunt CC. Tension distribution of single motor units in multitendoned muscles: comparison of a homologous digit muscle in cats and monkeys. J Neurosci 17: 1734-1747, 1997.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
82. Schieber MH, Gardinier J, and Liu J. Tension distribution to the five digits of the hand by neuromuscular compartments in the macaque flexor digitorum profundus. J Neurosci 21: 2150-2158, 2001.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
83. Schieber MH and Hibbard LS. How somatotopic is the motor cortex hand area? Science 261: 489-492, 1993.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
84. Schieber MH and Poliakov AV. Partial inactivation of the primary motor cortex hand area: effects on individuated finger movements. J Neurosci 18: 9038-9054, 1998.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
85. Serlin DM and Schieber MH. Morphologic regions of the multitendoned extrinsic finger muscles in the monkey forearm. Acta Anat (Basel) 146: 255-266, 1993.[Web of Science][Medline]
86. Shim JK, Latash ML, and Zatsiorsky VM. Prehension synergies: trial-to-trial variability and hierarchical organization of stable performance. Exp Brain Res 152: 173-184, 2003.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
87. Shinoda Y, Yokota J, and Futami T. Divergent projection of individual corticospinal axons to motoneurons of multiple muscles in the monkey. Neurosci Lett 23: 7-12, 1981.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
88. Shinoda Y, Zarzecki P, and Asanuma H. Spinal branching of pyramidal tract neurons in the monkey. Exp Brain Res 34: 59-72, 1979.[Web of Science][Medline]
89. Soechting JF and Flanders M. Flexibility and repeatability of finger movements during typing: analysis of multiple degrees of freedom. J Comput Neurosci 4: 29-46, 1997.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
90. Taylor DM, Tillery SI, and Schwartz AB. Direct cortical control of 3D neuroprosthetic devices. Science 296: 1829-1832, 2002.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
91. Twitchell TE. The restoration of motor function following hemiplegia in man. Brain: 443-480, 1951.
92. Valero-Cuevas FJ. Predictive modulation of muscle coordination pattern magnitude scales fingertip force magnitude over the voluntary range. J Neurophysiol 83: 1469-1479, 2000.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
93. Valero-Cuevas FJ and Hentz VR. Releasing the A3 pulley and leaving flexor superficialis intact increases pinch force following the Zancolli lasso procedures to prevent claw deformity in the intrinsic palsied finger. J Orthop Res 20: 902-909, 2002.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
94. Valero-Cuevas FJ, Zajac FE, and Burgar CG. Large index-fingertip forces are produced by subject-independent patterns of muscle excitation. J Biomech 31: 693-703, 1998.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
95. Von Schroeder HP and Botte MJ. The functional significance of the long extensors and juncturae tendinum in finger extension. J Hand Surg [Am] 18: 641-647, 1993.[Medline]
96. Von Schroeder HP, Botte MJ, and Gellman H. Anatomy of the juncturae tendinum of the hand. J Hand Surg [Am] 15: 595-602, 1990.[Medline]
97. Whishaw IQ and Gorny B. Arpeggio and fractionated digit movements used in prehension by rats. Behav Brain Res 60: 15-24, 1994.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
98. Winges SA, Maurer K, and Santello M. Motor unit synchrony and force coordination during 5-digit grasping. Soc Neurosci Abstr 29: 392.11, 2003.
99. Winges SA, Weber DJ, and Santello M. The role of vision on hand pre-shaping during reach to grasp. Exp Brain Res 152: 489-498, 2003.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
100. Zatsiorsky VM, Gao F, and Latash ML. Prehension synergies: effects of object geometry and prescribed torques. Exp Brain Res 148: 77-87, 2003.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
101. Zatsiorsky VM, Li ZM, and Latash ML. Coordinated force production in multi-finger tasks: finger interaction and neural network modeling. Biol Cybern 79: 139-150, 1998.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
102. Zatsiorsky VM, Li ZM, and Latash ML. Enslaving effects in multi-finger force production. Exp Brain Res 131: 187-195, 2000.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				F. J. Valero-Cuevas, M. Venkadesan, and E. Todorov Structured Variability of Muscle Activations Supports the Minimal Intervention Principle of Motor Control J Neurophysiol, July 1, 2009; 102(1): 59 - 68. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. A. Winges, S. E. Eonta, J. F. Soechting, and M. Flanders Effects of Object Compliance on Three-Digit Grasping J Neurophysiol, May 1, 2009; 101(5): 2447 - 2458. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. D. Vargas, A. Aballea, E. C. Rodrigues, K. T. Reilly, C. Mercier, P. Petruzzo, J. M. Dubernard, and A. Sirigu Re-emergence of hand-muscle representations in human motor cortex after hand allograft PNAS, April 28, 2009; 106(17): 7197 - 7202. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				I.-S. Hwang, Z.-R. Yang, C.-T. Huang, and M.-C. Guo Reorganization of multidigit physiological tremors after repetitive contractions of a single finger J Appl Physiol, March 1, 2009; 106(3): 966 - 974. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. J. Kutch, A. D. Kuo, A. M. Bloch, and W. Z. Rymer Endpoint Force Fluctuations Reveal Flexible Rather Than Synergistic Patterns of Muscle Cooperation J Neurophysiol, November 1, 2008; 100(5): 2455 - 2471. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. A. Winges, S. E. Eonta, J. F. Soechting, and M. Flanders Multi-Digit Control of Contact Forces During Rotation of a Hand-Held Object J Neurophysiol, April 1, 2008; 99(4): 1846 - 1856. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				U. Castiello and C. Begliomini The Cortical Control of Visually Guided Grasping Neuroscientist, April 1, 2008; 14(2): 157 - 170. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S. A. Winges, K. W. Kornatz, and M. Santello Common Input to Motor Units of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Hand Muscles During Two-Digit Object Hold J Neurophysiol, March 1, 2008; 99(3): 1119 - 1126. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				W. S. Yu, S. L. Kilbreath, R. C. Fitzpatrick, and S. C. Gandevia Thumb and finger forces produced by motor units in the long flexor of the human thumb J. Physiol., September 15, 2007; 583(3): 1145 - 1154. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. B. Hamed, M. H. Schieber, and A. Pouget Decoding M1 Neurons During Multiple Finger Movements J Neurophysiol, July 1, 2007; 98(1): 327 - 333. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. Lukos, C. Ansuini, and M. Santello Choice of Contact Points during Multidigit Grasping: Effect of Predictability of Object Center of Mass Location J. Neurosci., April 4, 2007; 27(14): 3894 - 3903. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. P. Coxon, C. M. Stinear, and W. D. Byblow Selective Inhibition of Movement J Neurophysiol, March 1, 2007; 97(3): 2480 - 2489. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				B. R. Townsend, L. Paninski, and R. N. Lemon Linear Encoding of Muscle Activity in Primary Motor Cortex and Cerebellum J Neurophysiol, November 1, 2006; 96(5): 2578 - 2592. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. A. Winges, J. A. Johnston, and M. Santello Muscle-Pair Specific Distribution and Grip-Type Modulation of Neural Common Input to Extrinsic Digit Flexors J Neurophysiol, September 1, 2006; 96(3): 1258 - 1266. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				V. Raos, M.-A. Umilta, A. Murata, L. Fogassi, and V. Gallese Functional Properties of Grasping-Related Neurons in the Ventral Premotor Area F5 of the Macaque Monkey J Neurophysiol, February 1, 2006; 95(2): 709 - 729. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. J Butler, S. L Kilbreath, R. B Gorman, and S. C Gandevia Selective recruitment of single motor units in human flexor digitorum superficialis muscle during flexion of individual fingers J. Physiol., August 15, 2005; 567(1): 301 - 309. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. A. Johnston, S. A. Winges, and M. Santello Periodic Modulation of Motor-Unit Activity in Extrinsic Hand Muscles During Multidigit Grasping J Neurophysiol, July 1, 2005; 94(1): 206 - 218. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. K. Shim, M. L. Latash, and V. M. Zatsiorsky Prehension Synergies in Three Dimensions J Neurophysiol, February 1, 2005; 93(2): 766 - 776. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. A. Winges and M. Santello From Single Motor Unit Activity to Multiple Grip Forces: Mini-review of Multi-digit Grasping. Integr. Comp. Biol., January 1, 2005; 45: 679 - 682. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Free Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (41) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Schieber, M. H. Articles by Santello, M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Schieber, M. H. Articles by Santello, M.