397
SCHOLARLY PAPER
Motor Control Theories -
Insights for therapists
Patricia Bate
Key Words
Motor control theory, rehabilitation, movement re-training, brain
injury.
Summary
Several approaches to treatment are described for the rehabili-
tation of movement following brain injury. It is likely that therapists’
choices of treatment approach and methods of application are
influenced by their assumptions about how movements are
produced. The present paper offers therapists an opportunity to
clarify and update their understanding of recent developments
in the scientific field of motor control theory. Some hierarchal,
neural network and dynamic models of movement production are
described, and some assumptions about movement production
and learning commonly applied in rehabilitation following brain
injury are placed within this theoretical context.
Introduction
It is likely that therapists are influenced in their
work by their assumptions about how movements
are produced (Horak, 1991; Shumway-Cook and
Woollacott, 1995). This paper provides therapists
with an opportunity t o clarify and update these
assumptions and to increase their understanding
of recent developments in the scientific field of
theories of movement production. Some current
models of movement production are described,
and common assumptions about it are placed
within a theoretical context. Implications of these
assumptions for rehabilitation of movement
following brain injury are discussed.
The material under discussion is complex. Key
points are listed as notes after each major section
and illustrative examples and exploratory
sections are given in boxes. The first examples
comprise illustrations of ways in which assump-
tions about motor production may influence the
practice of rehabilitation.
For a hypothetical example of direct application by a
therapist of theory about movement production,
consider the fact that the scapula rotates upwards
during gleno-humeral flexion. Knowledge of this fact
may lead a therapist to look for this movement
component in a patient’s performance, and/or to
focus on specific training of scapular movement
while practising reaching.
On a more abstract level, consider the work of a
therapist who assumes that movements emerge
from interactions of the mechanical characteristics
of a patient with the environment. Such a therapist
may use anti-gravity positions and common objects
more often in rehabilitation than a therapist who
believes that movements are controlled by motor
programmes stored in the cerebral cortex. The first
therapist may request a seated patient to reach for
a cup; the second may ask a patient to lie on his or
her side and perform shoulder flexion movements.
The scientific field describing movement produc-
tion is known as ‘motor control theory’. It is
different from the field known as ‘motor learning’
because it is centred on the concept of movement
production, rather than that of acquiring move-
ment skills. However, motor control theories often
support predictions about how skills are acquired,
and motor skill learning theories often incorpo-
rate assumptions about how movements are
controlled.
Within the field of motor control, models of
movement production are developed from
theory and then tested and modified. Some of
these models are based primarily o n inform-
ation flow in computers, some are based on
theory of physiology and anatomy, some on
theory of human behaviour and some on physics.
Because of their diverse origins, motor control
theories may appear very different from each
other.
Classification of Motor
Control Theories
Motor control theories may be classified in various
ways, the allocation of each theory t o a group
being dependent on the classification criteria. The
structure of the present classification reflects sets
of common assumptions, allows assumptions
central to the field of clinical neurology to be high-
lighted, and permits research-based discussion
Physiotherapy, August 1997, vol 83,no 8
398
of some more complex and recent material. Alter-
native classifications are presented by Reed
(19821, Horak (19911, Abernethy and Swallow
(1992) and Shumway-Cook and Woollacott (1995).
For the purposes of this paper motor control
theories were initially categorised into one of
two broad groups. Theories in the information
processing category explain motor control in terms
of information flow in the nervous system of the
organism. Sensory information flows in from
outside, t o be used and stored, and movement
commands flow outward; there is also extensive
information flow between these two systems.
These theories are based on anatomy and
physiology and information flow in computers,
and the behaviour of animals and humans in
laboratory experiments. In contrast, the action
category includes theories which are less reliant
on storage of information and central represen-
tation of movements, and place greater emphasis
on the role of the environment in movement
generation. Some of these theories are based on
the assumption that movements are an emergent
property of the dynamics of the physical system
comprising the organism and its environment.
The present is a n interesting time to examine
motor control theories, because a shift of para-
digm may be occurring within the motor control
field (Abernethy and Swallow, 1992). The infor-
mation processing models of motor control have
dominated the field for the last three decades,
but some interpretations of the experimental
evidence supporting these models are now being
questioned. Support for models of motor control
based on physical principles is growing rapidly
(Gentner, 1987; Heuer, 1988).
Information Processing Models
Models of motor control falling within the infor-
mation processing category may be further
classified as hierarchal or neural network models
(Horak, 1991).
Hierarchal Models
One of the assumptions of models categorised as
‘hierarchal’ is that the organisation of the nervous
system is ‘top down’ (Horak, 1991). Arguing that
the parts of the brain of more recent phylogenetic
development are more important, supporters
of this view consider that adaptive control of
complex movements is performed by the cortex,
and the more automatic control of simpler func-
tions occurs at lower levels of the nervous system.
This point of view has developed from decades
of debate over whether the peripheral o r more
central parts of the nervous system control move-
ment (Reed, 1982). Clinical implications of this
view include the concept of release of reflexes due
Physiotherapy, August 1997, vol 83, no 8
to disruption of higher level control, and the idea
that movements controlled by lower levels of the
nervous system occur in stereotyped patterns
(Horak, 1991). These models fail to explain the
experimental finding that some complex functions
such as the gait cycle are driven from a spinal
level.
The hierarchal models emphasise control of
movement by knowledge accumiilated through
experience (Marteniuk et al, 1988) and by inten-
tion (Proteau et a l , 1987) and they assume
internal structure changes with learning. These
assumptions appear to be held by most therapists,
who expect that patients will remember some
aspects of a movement practised the previous
session.
The Generalised Motor Programme
The concept of the motor programme was dev-
eloped from studies of performances of simple
motor tasks, to explain how high levels of the
nervous system can store representations of a
large number of movements. A generalised motor
programme (GMP) is a rule for producing a proto-
type movement; it can be viewed as a set of
commands that is capable of carrying out move-
ments without the use of feedback. The rule is
general; values of various parameters have to be
specified for a specific movement t o be produced
(Summers, 1981).
For example: think of playing tennis. The sight of
the other player lining up a shot which will bring the
ball to your forehand side may activate a GMP for
forehand strokes; but the precise force and timing
values may have to be specified further if your
racquet is to contact the ball.
Evidence for the Use of GMPs
1.One of the strongest pieces of evidence for the
existence of GMPs is the motor equivalence
phenomenon. It is argued that for this phenom-
enon (the production of a functional movement
such as writing, by different body parts) to exist,
there must be a common set of instructions for
which the body part to be used is a n additional
specification.
An apparent application of the notion of the GMP is
seen in therapists’ assumptions that rehearsal of a
skill using one body part may lead subsequently to
more co-ordinated performance of the same skill
by another part. While it is not known if this effect
occurs in brain injured people, therapists sometimes
ask for a required movement to be first performed
by the opposite limb.
I

2. It has also been proposed that identification of
aspects of movement which do not change with
changing task conditions would support the exis-
tence of abstract motor programmes coded in such
terms (Schmidt, 1988; Magill, 1989). This would
be potentially useful in rehabilitation because
knowledge of the ‘language’in which movement is
controlled may lead to more efficient design of
motor retraining programmes. However, exten-
sive experimentation has yielded conflicting
findings. It has been proposed that some findings
of invariances in temporal parameters of move-
ment across different conditions (eg Shapiro et al,
1981) are effects of experimental design rather
than real phenomena (Burgess-Limerick et al,
1992).
Producing Novel Movements Using the GMP
One of the main advances made by the concept
of a GMP was in its capacity t o explain production
of novel variations of movements (Summers,
1981). One of the experimental paradigms on
which this model is based was pointing to a small
target. Using this task as a n example, such a
novel variation could be produced by setting the
target a different distance from the subject. Thus,
if you have a GMP for the task of touching a call-
button, then you can touch such a button 35 cm in
front of you even if none of the call buttons you
ever previously pressed were exactly that distance
away. This type of novelty, the scaling of a pre-
existing movement pattern, is the only type of
new movement which can be explained by the
concept of a GMP.
Without this assumption a therapist might
consider it necessary to guide a brain injured
patient through practice of every variation of
every task he or she may ever need to perform.
However, the GMP concept cannot explain the
development of new movement forms (that is
acquisition of new GMPs).
Consider the first time you did a handstand. Did
standing on your hands require a new GMP? If it did,
then your performance could not be easily explained
by this model.
[There is another possibility:a GMP for that task could
have existed in your central nervous system, geneti-
cally coded, never to be activated until that day.
Perhaps you had to practise to find the appropriate
values for the timing and force parameters of this
pre-existing, never-used GMP.]
This limitation of hierarchal control theory
offers insight in relation to the management of
brain injured patients who are unable to perform
a particular task, or who perform it very poorly.
In considering the many factors contributing t o
399
the poor performance therapists should include
the possibility that the patient may no longer
have access to a GMP for the movement. Unfor-
tunately hierarchal models offer no prediction
of how development of another GMP should be
attempted.
Much of the empirical literature describes the
improvements in outcomes of motor tasks which
occur with practice as continuous functions
(Newell, 1991), supporting the predictions of
hierarchal models of motor control. However,
learning in brain damaged subjects has been
shown to comprise irregular increments in task
outcome rather than smooth progressions (for
example: Neilson and McCaughey, 1982; Bate
and Matyas, 1992). This difference may be
due t o the fact that while the tasks practised by
the normal subjects were already well learned
(Newell et al, 1989), the task performances
of brain injured subjects may have been at
a n earlier stage of learning. Alternatively, the
irregular progress of brain damaged subjects
may indicate that their learning in rehabilita-
tion does not occur in the manner predicted
by hierarchal models of motor control.
Schema Theory
Schema theory (Schmidt, 1975),while developed
primarily t o describe motor learning, has many
features characteristic of hierarchal theories of
motor control. The model states that a GMP initi-
ates a movement, and that feedback from the
movement is compared with a generalised sensory
representation to allow corrections and learning.
Learning with Schema Theory
Unlike earlier models, schema theory predicts
that variability in task conditions will enhance
learning. That is, the GMP will become more
accurate if variations on the movement are
performed, rather as the predictions of a math-
ematical relationship become more reliable
if more points are added t o the data set. This
prediction has been supported in a study of
stroke patients learning a pursuit tracking task
(Bate et al, 1992).
This model also predicts that we do not learn from
passive movements. Assuming this to be true,
therapists are challenged to create situations in
which action is demanded from a paralysed limb.
Finally, schema theory predicts that learning
requires active processing of feedback; in infor-
mation theory terms this means it requires
attention. Consonant with this model of learning,
movement rehabilitation places heavy emphasis
on patients’ attention t o feedback (Carr et a l ,
1987; Bobath, 1990).
Physiotherapy,August 1997, vol83, no 8
400
Notes
1. The assumption that the cortex controls complex
movements and lower centres control more auto-
matic, simpler movements is probably wrong.
2. Hierarchal control theories assume that move-
ments are controlled by knowledge accumulated
through experience, and that internal structure
changes with learning; these assumptions appear
consistent with the practice of rehabilitation.
3. The concept of a GMP appears to explain posi-
tive transfer of a skill to performance by an untrained
part of the body.
4. The prediction of hierarchal motor control theo-
ries that improvement is a continuous progression
maysnot reflect the pattern of changes occurring
during rehabilitation following brain injury.
5. Schema theory predicts that practice of variations
of a movement will improve performance.
6. Schema theory predicts that we do not learn from
passive movements; therapists create situations
affording active movements.
7. Schema theory predicts that learning requires
attention to feedback; this prediction is consistent
with practice in rehabilitation.
Neural Network Models
In these models of motor control, simple process-
ing units consisting of neurones and their ex-
tensive systems of interconnecting dendrites
are linked t o form nets. These networks take on
activation levels and send excitatory and
inhibitory signals. Communication within and
between the nets is far more extensive than is
assumed in hierarchal models, and at all levels
and in all directions within the central nervous
system, rather than predominantly in inward or
outward directions as in the hierarchal models.
Goal directed actions are believed t o emerge
from transmissions between overlapping neural
networks which serve particular functions.
The possibility that movement is supported by
neural networks is suggested by the findings of
recent investigations of the speech system (Abbs
et al, 19841, the eye-head-hand system (Carnahan
and Marteniuk, 1991) and the prehension system
(Cole and Abbs, 1986). These studies have shown
that when one component of the system is unex-
pectedly perturbed, interpretable speech or
accurate touch is still achieved because of very
rapid modifications of the movements of many
components. Such control of a multi-movement
system requires extensive ongoing communica-
tion by feedback and feedforward processes. It is
argued t h a t because this type of extensive
communication is characteristic of neural nets,
but does not feature in hierarchal models, it is
more likely that complex functional movements
Physiotherapy,August 1997, vol83, no 8
are controlled by neural nets (Abbs et a l , 1978).
These models assume that the parameter encoded
by the controlling system is achievement of the
functional goal rather than control of movement
components. A therapist working under this
assumption ensures that movement retraining is
conducted in the context of achievement of func-
tion.
The complex fast communications possible within
a neural network would allow computationally
demanding methods of motor control such as
those that require extensive calculations during
movement performance. There is strong support
for the operation of this type of control in human
movement, and several such models offer intuitive
appeal when considered from a rehabilitation
frame of reference, because they support some
assumptions inherent in rehabilitation practice.
Hogan (1984) has presented a mathematical
model describing the organisation of voluntary
movements so that the smoothest trajectory
possible is achieved: that is, the rate of change of
acceleration is minimised. The model has been
shown accurately to predict position and velocity
profiles of multi-joint movements (Flash and
Hogan, 19821, and thus has some demonstrated
validity as a control mechanism for human move-
ment. The key assumption of the model, that
movement is controlled to be as smooth as
possible, is consonant with the high value often
placed on smoothness of movement in rehabilita-
tion following brain injury.
Three other models requiring the extensive
computation capacity existing in a neural net-
work reflect characteristics of movements often
encouraged in rehabilitation. Investigating
the movements of subjects instructed t o move
comfortably, Cruse and colleagues (1993) derived
a mathematical model in which the character-
istics of comfortable movements could be
reproduced using a minimum cost principle
requiring that joint movement be equally distrib-
uted among the available joints. This model thus
supports the assumptions t h a t a ‘comfortable’
movement is one of minimal energy requirement,
and that all available joints are involved when a
‘comfortable’movement is produced.
Also along the lines of minimum effort, Hirayama
and colleagues (1993) successfully tested a model
in which the initial feedforward command was
based on a minimum torque criterion, and Uno
and colleagues (1989) developed a model of
motor control based on the principle of minimum
muscle tension change. These models support the
assumptions that movements are generated
which use the minimum force or muscle tension
necessary t o achieve the movement goal. These

assumptions also appear to be reflected in prac-
tice of rehabilitation with brain injured patients.
Transformation of Information
The neural network models require that informa-
tion is transmitted between neural nets which
serve particular functions. It is proposed that
information is encoded in different frames of
reference within each net; and that the informa-
tion must be transformed so that the meaning is
retained, for each transmission between nets.
Consider a linguistic analogy: it is thought that
communication within each subsystem of the neural
network is in a different language. In order for sub-
systems to talk to each other, the information must
be translated.
Alternatively, consider the transformationswhich may
be required in processing informationfor a person
reaching to an object. Knowledge of the position of
the object relative to the gaze, the orientation of the
eyes relative to the head, the head to the trunk and
the arm to the trunk are necessary to determine the
position of the hand relative to the object. Each of
these pieces of information may be stored as co-ordi-
nates in a different sensory co-ordinate subsystem,
t h u s four transformations would be required in
processing this perceptual information.
Further, because of the nature of our receptors,
perceptual information is probably coded in kinematic
terms as spatio-temporal patterns. However, many
motor control models suggest that movements are
controlled dynamically; that is, they propose that the
language of motor control includes force in addition
to space and time information. If this is so, production
of the movement of reaching for an object would
involve additional transformations. A s well as the
transformations between extrinsic and intrinsic
kinematic co-ordinates described in the preceding
paragraph, transformations between kinematics
and dynamics and between dynamics and muscle
activation would be necessary (Soechting,1989).
The concept of transformation of information
between frames of reference or co-ordinate
systems is interesting when considered in relation
to rehabilitation for brain injured patients. It
offers the possibility that movement re-training is
effective by increasing the accuracy of these trans-
formations. Perhaps when movements are a little
awkward or halting or innaccurate this is due t o
imprecision in transformation of information
between subsystems. Rehabilitation may offer
opportunity for re-calibration or fine-tuning
between subsystems. Bingham (1988) has
proposed a definition of learning which is
congruent with this possibility. He suggested
that learning is the selection or discovery of
constraints that minimise the computations
necessary t o transform information between
frames of reference.
401
Also interesting in terms of rehabilitation is
the concept of coding information within each
subsystem. It may be that task practice increases
the accuracy with which points are located within
a co-ordinate system. Investigating possible
co-ordinate systems for a target-directed arm
movement, Soechting (1982) demonstrated that
the arm movements were performed within a
frame of reference centred at the shoulder, rela-
tive t o absolute vertical and horizontal planes.
This finding offers clues for potentially useful
imagery in re-training. If the co-ordinate systems
of particular motor functions are known, it may
be effective to use these systems in movement
instructions.
Notes
8. The multi-movement model of motor control
assumes that the goal encoded by the controlling
system is achievement of the function rather than
control of contributing movement components.
9. Neural network models assume that motor control
is computationally demanding.
10. Some neural network models assume move-
ments are controlled in terms of smoothness of
trajectory, or minimisation of force, energy require-
ments or muscle tension, or in terms of distribution of
movement through all available joints.
11. Rehabilitation may be effective through
increasing the accuracy with which information is
encoded within subsystems of the neural net, or the
accuracy of transformations of information between
subsystems.
Action Theories
Action theories (Reed, 1982) apply a more macro-
scopic lens t o the topic of movement production
than the information processing approach. They
also accent different aspects of movement produc-
tion, and as yet have not clearly addressed the
concept of learning. Functional actions are viewed
broadly as emerging from the relationship
between the organism and the environment.
Rather than assuming two sequential processes
within the organism, one in which movement
results from activation of a pre-existing motor
programme and another in which movement is
modified upon receipt of feedback of perceived
changes, as in hierarchal models, action theories
identify the mutualism of the relationship
between the organism and the environment as
the source of movement. The emphasis upon the
integrative nature of the movement production
process extends to the assumption that in this
process perception and movement are so entwined
that it is not valid to consider either in isolation.
Instead, they are considered t o operate together
Physiotherapy, August 1997, vol83, no 8
402
in an arena commonly known as the ‘perceptuo-
motor workspace (perceptuo-motor field)’ (Newell
et al, 1989).
Field-orientedTheory of Perception
An understanding of the integral nature of the
relationship between perception and movement
emphasised in action theories can be gained by
interpreting actions in terms of Gibson’s (1979)
field-oriented theory of perception.
This theory emphasises the complex role of the
optic flow field in movement production. The optic
flow field is the pattern of stimuli on the retina
produced by the interaction between the organism
and the environment. This optic flow field is
controlled by movement, and it also provides
information for both perceiving and action.
Imagine a horse running fast on an open plain. As it
runs, the long grass in front of it appears to the horse
to move closer, and then to flow past on each side.
The horse sees the grass stems on either side
moving backwards very fast, and the mountains
moving more slowly. The horse swerves in the direc-
tion of a tree, and the tree appears to it to move in the
opposite direction, towards the centre of the field of
view, and to move closer. In this example the optic
flow field has provided information about speed and
direction of running. Also, change in the speed and
direction of running caused concomitant change in
the position and movement of the stimuli impinging
on the retina. That is, movement changed the optic
flow field, and the optic flow field provided information
controlling both perception and action.
Consider that you are landing an aeroplane in a
computer simulation. You hold a joystick, and are
watching a moving graphical display of the view from
the pilot’s seat. This includes ground features such
as bushes and grass around the landing strip, the
edges of the landing strip, and lines painted across
the strip every 20 metres. You have no other infor-
mation. You watch the relative positions and changes
in position of these visual stimuli and use this infor-
mation to control the height, pitch, yaw and roll of the
plane through the joystick. That is, the optic flow field
changed the movement of your arm, and hence the
aeroplane. In this example also, while movement
changed the optic flow field, the optic flow field
provided information controlling both perception
and action.
Following publication of Gibson’s theory, it was
proposed that the organising role of optic flow in
movement production may be extended to other
modalities (Newell et al, 1989). That is, in the
language of action models, not only the visuo-
motor field, but more broadly, the perceptuo-
motor field, may organise movement.
Action theories, in which movements are gener-
Physiotherapy, August 1997, vol 83,no 8
ated in real time from interaction between the
organism and the environment, predict that novel
movements would arise if the environment, the
organism, or their interaction was altered. Thus,
some action theories predict t h a t people could
effectively handle a joystick if their environment
suddenly included an unconscious pilot, even if
they had not done so before.
The environment is given more importance in this
model than in traditional forms of rehabilitation. The
implication for rehabilitation following brain injury is
that therapists could change the environment in such
a way that the interaction of the patient with the
environment generates the required movement.
In addition to changing the patients’ cognitive envir-
onment by giving specific instructions, or altering their
biomechanical environment by applying a mod-
ality such as ultrasound or stretching, their external
environment could be modified so that it facilitates
better performance.
Action theories such as the field-oriented theory
of perception (Gibson, 1979), which emphasise the
role of perception in motor control, do not clearly
address the issue of learning. It is interesting
to speculate what effects movement training
may have in terms of this model. Presumably
finer discrimination of sensory stimuli, and finer
tuning of motor mechanisms, could lead t o gener-
ation of more finely co-ordinated movements.
However, the way in which such increases in
capacity of the organism would occur is not spec-
ified in many action models.
Dynamic Emphasis in Action Theories
Emphasising the importance of interaction
between the organism and the environment in
movement production Kugler et al (1980) eluci-
dated a constraint perspective of motor control
which was based on the work of Feldman (1986),
Polit and Bizzi (1978) and Bernstein (1967). This
model explains the use of constraints in move-
ment production in terms of physics and biology;
we obey the laws of mechanics, acting like springs
and pendulums and more complex systems in
interacting with the environment. In contrast to
neural network theories, which support a large
amount of information processing occurring
in parallel systems, one of the effects of control
based on dynamic principles is minimisation
of the computational load on the nervous system.
For each task some of the dynamic properties
of the human action system are assembled,
temporarily, into a ‘low-dimensionaldeterministic
machine that is used to achieve the goals’ of the
task (Bingham, 1988, page 240). The term ‘low-
dimensional’ here refers to the small number of
variables which would have t o be controlled by
computational processes.

Picture yourself returning from the supermarket with
a bag of groceries. You put them on a low bench in
the kitchen. Among assorted items is a large plastic
container of juice with a handle formed from the body
of the container. You reach out with your right hand
and hook two fingers around the handle of the juice
container as you turn toward the refrigerator. You
let the container drop to the full length of your arm, it
swings out a little away from your body dragging your
arm through a curvilinear path to the refrigerator.
Toward the end of its arc the container gains just
sufficient height to graze the edge of the lowest shelf.
You add a little shove and it slides to rest.
Notice the effortlessness of the way in which the
juice was transported. What sort of mechanical
system (ie temporary low-dimensionaldeterministic
machine) did your arm become? What principles of
physics were exploited? Perhaps the muscles of the
arm were constrained to act like a pendulum, the
falling mass of the bottle providing momentum for
the swing u p to the refrigerator shelf at the far end
of its arc.
A Dynamic Perspective of Learning
While action models make few specific predictions
about learning, Bernstein (19671, the father of
dynamic theory, stated that learning is developing
groupings of muscles set to have the particular
properties which will enable them t o interact
mechanically with the forces of the environment
in such a way that the task is performed mechan-
ically except for minor tuning. It appears that
rehabilitation could provide extensive opport-
unities t o experience movement in various
environments, while also experiencing a demand
for reduction of the energy used in moving. These
circumstances may lead t o development of the
properties referred to by Bernstein (1967).
Equilibrium Point Hypothesis
This can be considered t o be one of the more
simple dynamic models, although there are
several current versions of this model and they
appear to be growing in complexity. Simply repre-
sented, it is assumed that the muscles moving a
body segment can be represented by springs
whose resting length can be set at some value.
Motor programmes dictate relative lengths and
stiffnesses of muscles, the values of which define
positions of the end of the limb in space (Polit and
Bizzi, 1978; Feldman, 1986; Hogan et aZ, 1987).
I t is possible t o imagine ratios of muscle stiff-
ness set up in such a way that the arm will swing
like a simple pendulum, coming to rest at the set
equilibrium point.
Examination of the model predicts a mechanism
by which movement rehabilitation may be
403
effective; that is, by re-setting the resting
1engtWtensionratios of muscle. This could lead t o
changes in resting posture, sensations of greater
ease of movement, and availability of a broader
range of movement combinations.
Control of
Complex Movement
Newel1 et aZ(1989) have pointed out that co-ordi-
nation of complex movements has not been
extensively studied. Most motor control models
explain performance and learning of simple,
bidirectional, well learned movements; for
example, schema theory, and the equilibrium
point hypothesis (Feldman, 1986).
Knowledge about the control of complex func-
tional tasks such as locomotion or balance, which
continue cyclically over time, may be particularly
relevant in the rehabilitation of movement
following brain injury, in which such functions are
important goals. This control can be modelled as
pattern formation in dynamical systems (Turvey,
1990).
Dynamic systems are systems in which behav-
iours evolve in time. Using gait as the system t o
be illustrated: as the limbs start moving, kine-
matic and kinetic measures of gait can be seen to
pass through some variations and then to settle
into repeating patterns which can be described
by cadence and speed. The mechanics of the
organism and the environment, the goals and
energy supply of the organism, and its perceptual
feedforward and feedback subsystems, define
these regions of stable equilibrium. As the system
tends t o return to regions of stable equilibrium,
a regular walking pattern will emerge.
Another example of a region of stable equilibrium,
o r a constraint, which may operate in the
perceptuo-motor workspace of a dynamical
system, is provided in the Equilibrium Point
Hypothesis. In this model of motor control, set
ratios of stiffness around a joint represent a state
to which the system will tend to return - ie t o
which it will be attracted. This type of constraint
is termed a ‘point attractor’. Another type of
constraint is the stable limit cycle attractor. Oper-
ation of this type of attractor underpins the easy
way in which a seated person can rhythmically
swing a leg from the knee. Metabolic energy is
injected periodically into the system, potentially
increasing the kinetic energy; the energy is dissi-
pated as heat in such a way that the velocity
and position of the limb cycle regularly in time.
Particular functions, such as gait, are identified
with particular kinematic patterns. These are
assembled by the generation of particular dynam-
ical attractor states in the perceptuo-motor
Physiotherapy, August 1997, vol83, no 8
404
work-space specific t o that function. The form
of a movement pattern or co-ordinative mode
is identified with the stable equilibrium regions
in the perceptuo-motor workspace.
Dynamic systems may also be characterised by
their capacity to change state. When values of a
particular variable are changed and reach a crit-
ical level, a new region of stable equilibrium is
generated (Shumway-Cookand Woollacott, 1995).
The gait system appears to show such behaviour;
if the speed of walking increases, a t a certain
speed the form of the movement pattern changes
and it becomes running.
These models hold an important implication for
rehabilitation in relation t o the passive compo-
nents of a patient's biomechanics. Normal lengths
and stiffness ratios of soft tissue must be achieved
before the movement may settle t o a region of
stable equilibrium close to normal.
Learning of Complex Movements
A dynamic perspective of control can describe
learning of both simple and complex move-
ments. The learner can be seen as exploring
the perceptuo-motor workspace for attractors,
and mapping the annihilation and creation of
these properties as they evolve as a function
of motion through space and time (Newel1et al,
1989).
This description of the learning process appears
to match the structure for movement development
offered in the form of creative dance and aware-
ness through movement (Feldenkrais, 1980)
lessons. In these situations constraints such
as unusual skeletal configurations, unusual
movement goals, and proximity t o the floor
are introduced, and students are encouraged
t o explore this workspace. The exploration is
sometimes conducted in a rhythmic fashion.
Considering the dynamic perspective in relation
t o the generation of novel movements, i t seems
likely that the type of exploration described could
lead to discovery of new movement solutions
or forms. The model could thus be applicable in
rehabilitation in any case where a patient is
viewed as requiring new movement patterns.
The dynamic models do not predict continuous
improvements in task performance. They predict
that regular measures of performance conducted
over a practice period will demonstrate irregular
increments in skill as new movement forms are
generated and explored. This model of learning
may match the process of motor skill acqui-
sition following brain damage better than the
predictions of continuous improvement during
learning made from hierarchal information
processing models.
Physiotherapy, August 1997, vol 83,no 8
Notes
12. Action theories assume that the relationship
between the organism and the environment is the
origin of movement.
13. Gibson's (1 979) theory assumes that the optic
flow field controls, and is controlled by, movement.
14. Dynamical models assume that the human action
system is assembled temporarily into mechanical
systems suitable for performing particular tasks by
exploiting the laws of physics.
15. The equilibrium point hypothesis predicts that
postures and movement styles are determined by
IengthAension relationships in muscles.
16. Interpreting motor control in terms of dissipative
dynamic systems, it is assumed that the perceptuo-
motor system generates particular combinations and
values of variables (eg particular constraints) that
makes it tend to move in a particular way for a partic-
ular function. Learning is assumed to be exploration
for optimal variables and settings, and improvements
in task outcomes may not be continuous.
Conclusion
The disparate and apparently conflicting nature
of the various models of motor control is probably
a function of their diverse sources of origin, of
different levels of observation, and of great versa-
tility in modes of action of the human organism.
The range of motor control methods utilised in
various situations may be very great; it is con-
ceivable that one person could demonstrate
characteristics of equilibrium point control to a
physiologist measuring activity in the brachialis
muscle in response to stretch, and also display the
physics of a dissipative dynamic system to a
physicist observing running at different speeds
on a treadmill.
While a paradigm which incorporates all aspects
of movement has not yet emerged in the field of
motor control, the current models offer extensive
challenge and scope to therapists. Because
we are likely t o apply our assumptions about
motor control in our work, either explicitly or
even without being aware that we are doing so,
it is important that we remain informed of the
sources and limitations of these assumptions,
and thus of the situations in which they are
likely t o be valid. We can also use the field of
motor control as a source for new directions in
rehabilitation of movement.
This review of the information processing and
action models of motor control has identified
aspects of the theories of movement production
that appear t o have potential t o explain some of
the practices in rehabilitation following brain
injury. It has also identified issues worthy of

further discussion by therapists. Some of the
predictions of the theories reviewed are empiri-
cally testable within the rehabilitation paradigm,
offering opportunity for sound research within
our field.
Author and Address for Correspondence
Patricia Bate MAppSci BAppSc(Phty) MAPA is a senior lecturer
in the School of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Health Sciences,
La Trobe University, Plenty Road, Bundoora, Victoria, Australia.
This article was received on October 10, 1996, and accepted on
December 2, 1996.
References
Abbs, J H and Cole, K J (1978). 'Neural mechanisms of motor
equivalence and goal achievement' in: Wise, S P (ed) Higher
Brain Functions, Wiley, USA.
Abbs, J H, Gracco, V L and Cole, K J (1984). 'Control of multi-
movement co-ordination: Sensorimotor mechanisms in speech
motor programming', Journal of Motor Behavior, 16, 195-231.
Abernethy, B and Swallow, A (1992). 'The rise and fall of domi-
nant paradigms in motor behaviour research' in: Summers, J J
(ed) Approaches to the Study of Motor Control and Learning,
Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, pages 343-384.
Bate, P J and Matyas, T M (1992). 'Negative transfer of training
following brief practice of elbow tracking movements with
electromyographic feedback from spastic antagonists',
Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 73, 1050-58.
Bate, P J, Matyas, T and Rogers, D R (1992). 'Movement rehab-
ilitation following brain damage: Transfer of training after
consultant or variable practice,' presented at Allied Health
Research Seminar, Austin Hospital, Melbourne.
Bernstein, N A (1967). The Co-ordination and Regulation of
Movement', Pergamon Press, Sydney.
Bingham, G P (1988). 'Task specific devices and the perceptual
bottleneck', Human Movement Science, 7,225-264.
Bobath, B (1990). Adult Hemiplegia: Evaluation and treatment,
Heinemann, London, 3rd edn.
Burgess-Limerick, R, Neal, R J and Abernethy, B (1992). 'Against
relatiye timing invariance in movement kinematics', Quarterly
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 44A, 4k, 705-722.
Carr, J H, Shepherd, R S , Gordon, J, Gentile, A M and Held, J M
(1987). Movement Science: Foundations for physical therapy
in rehabilitation, Aspen, Maryland.
Carnahan, H and Marteniuk, R G (1991). 'The temporal organi-
sation of hand, eye and head movements during reaching
and pointing', Journal of Motor Behavior, 23, 2, 109-1 19.
Cole, K J and Abbs, J H (1986). 'Kinematic and electromyo-
graphic responses to perturbation of a rapid grasp', Journal of
Neurophysiology, 57, 1498-1 510.
Cruse, H, Bruwer, M and Dean, J (1993). 'Control of three- and
four-joint arm movement: Strategies for a manipulator with redun- a sense of joint angle or one of limb orientation?' Brain Research,
dant degrees of freedom', Journal of Motor B e / ~ v i o r , 248, 393.
25,3, 131-1 39.
Feldman, A G (1986). 'Once more upon the equilibrium-point
hypothesis (lambda model) for motor control', Journal of Motor
Behavior, 18, 17-54.
Feldenkrais, M (1980). Awareness Through Movement, Penguin,
Middlesex.
Flash, T and Hogan, N (1982). 'Evidence for an optimisation
strategy in arm trajectory formation', Society of Neuroscience
Abstracts, 8, 282.
Gentner, D R (1987). 'Timing of skilled motor performance: Tests August, 938-953.
of the proportional duration hypothesis', Psychological Review,
94,255-276.
Gibson, J J (1979). The Ecological Approach to Visual Percep-
tion, Houghton Mifflin, Boston.
405
Heuer, H (1988). 'Testing the invariance of relative timing:
Comment on Gentner (1987). Psychological Review, 95,
552-557.
Hirayama, M, Jordan, M I and Kawato, M (1993). 'The cascade
neural network model and a speed-accuracy trade-off of arm
movement', Journal of Motor Behavior, 25, 3, 162-1 74.
Hogan, N (1984). 'An organising principle for a class of volun-
tary movements', Journal of Neuroscience, 4, 2745-54.
Hogan, N, Bizzi, E, Mussa-lvaldi, F and Flash, T (1987). 'Control-
ling multijoint motor behaviour', Exercise and Sports Science
Reviews, 15, 153-190.
Horak, F (1 991). 'Assumptions underlying motor control for
neurologic rehabilitation', in: Contemporary Management
of Motor Control Problems, Proceedings, 11 Step Conference,
Foundation for Physical Therapy, New York.
Kugler, A N, Kelso, J A S and Turvey, M T (1980). 'On the
concept of co-ordinative structures as dissipative structures.
1: Theoretical lines of convergence' in: Stelmach, G E and
Requin, J (eds) Tutorials in Motor Behaviour, Elsevier Science,
Amsterdam.
Magill, R A (1989). Motor Learning: Concepts and applications,
W C Brown, Indianapolis, 3rd edn.
Marteniuk, R G, McKenzie, C L and Leavitt, J L (1988). 'Repre-
sentational physical accounts of motor control and learning:
Can they account for the data?' in: Colley, A M and Beech, J R
(eds) Cognition and Skilled Behaviour, Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Neilsen, P D and McCaughey, P (1982). 'Self regulation of spasm
and spasticity in cerebral palsy', Journal of Neurology, Neuro-
surgery and Psychiatry, 45, 320-330.
Newell, K M, Kughler, P N, Van Emmerik, R A E and McDonald,
P V (1989). 'Search strategies and the acquisition of co-ordina-
tion', in: Wallace, S A (ed) Perspectives on the Co-ordination of
Movement, Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Newell, K (1991). 'Motor skill acquisition', Annual Review of
Psychology, 42,213-237.
Polit, A and Bizzi, E (1978). 'Processes controlling arm move-
ments in monkeys', Science, 201, September 29, 1235-37.
Proteau, L, Marteniuk, R G, Gerouard, Y and Dugas, C (1987).
'On the type of information used to control aiming movements
after moderate and extensive training', Canadian Journal of
PSyCholOgy, 6,181-199.
Reed, E S (1982). 'An outline of a theory of action systems,
Journal of Motor Behavior, 14, 2, 98-134.
Schmidt, R A (1975). 'A schema theory of discrete motor skill
learning', Psychological Review, 82, 225-260.
Schmidt, R A (1988). Motor Control and Learning: A behavioral
emphasis, Human Kinetics, Illinois, 2nd edn.
Shapiro, D C, Zernicke, R F, Gregor, R J and Diestal, J D (1981).
'Evidence of generalised motor programmes using gait pattern
analysis', Journal of Motor Behavior, 13, 33-47.
Shumway-Cook, A and Woollacott, M (1995). Motor Control:
Theory and practical application, Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore.
Soechting, J F (1982). 'Does position sense at the elbow reflect
Soechting, J F (1989). 'Elements of co-ordinated arm movements
in three-dimensional space' in: Wallace S A, Perspectives on the
Co-ordination of Movemenf, Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Summers, J J (1981). 'Motor programs' in: Holding, D (ed)
Human Skills, John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Summers, J J (1992). 'Movement behaviour: A field in crisis?'
in: Summers, J J (ed) Approaches to the Study of Motor Control
and Learning, Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Turvey, M T (1990). 'Co-ordination', American Psychologist,
Uno, Y, Suzuki, R and Kawato, M (1989)..'Minimum muscle
tension change model which reproduces a human arm move-
ment', Proceedings of the Fourth Symposium on Biological and
Physical Engineering, Fukuoka, Japan, 299-302.
Physiotherapy, August 1997, vol83, no 8