Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Unplanned movement

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    The Brain Is Faster than the Hand in Split-Second Intentions to Respond to an Impending Hazard:.....

    http://journal.frontiersin.org/artic...016.00187/full

    Introduction
    Safe and effective performance in many occupational settings is critically dependent on people making timely and correct split-second decisions to avoid an impending hazard. Consider a speeding driver having to swerve to avoid hitting a child running unexpectedly onto the roadway; a nurse having to administer defibrillation to a patient having sudden cardiac arrest; or a pilot having to execute a rapid maneuver to recover from a stall or other abrupt perturbation during high-speed flight. Although some drivers, nurses, and pilots may be sufficiently skilled to make quick decisions and avoid mishaps in these situations, there are many conditions—fatigue, stress, mind wandering, task overload, to name a few—that can degrade human performance so that a correct and timely response is not possible and an accident may result.

    One approach to this problem is to enhance human performance in such time-critical situations by decoding a person's neural activity associated with the intention to act. Once intention has been detected, one could provide appropriate feedback to the human operator or trigger computer aiding. Brain activity precedes motor action, so if neural signals associated with the intention to act could be successfully decoded in real time, one could use the decoded output to aid the human user. Using computer technology to augment human performance based on an assessment of human operator cognitive states is termed adaptive automation (Parasuraman et al., 1992; Scerbo, 2008; Parasuraman and Galster, 2013). Neuroadaptive automation is when neural signals are used to assess operator state, an approach that has been successful in mitigating human performance decrements in a variety of cognitive tasks (Byrne and Parasuraman, 1996; Prinzel et al., 2000; Scerbo et al., 2003; Wilson and Russell, 2007; Ting et al., 2010; Durantin et al., 2015; Gateau et al., 2015). Such an approach is consistent with the field of passive Brain Computer Interfaces (BCI), also referred to as Brain Machine Interfaces (BMI), in which user neural states are monitored in order to enhance human interaction with external devices (Blankertz et al., 2010; Lotte et al., 2013).

    There is extensive research on the use of BCIs to support partially or fully disabled persons to control devise such as computers and prosthetic limbs (Reiner, 2008), and a smaller but growing literature on their use for healthy individuals so as to enhance human-system interaction (Zander and Kothe, 2011; Lotte et al., 2013). Comparatively little work has been conducted comparing the effects of neuroadaptive automation or passive BCIs to human performance in time-critical (split-second) decision-making situations [For related research see the studies by Haufe et al. (2011, 2014) and Kim et al. (2015) concerned with detection of braking intention by EEG]. In particular, when a critical event has to be detected and responded to quickly, can one decode the associated neural states of the human operator to achieve a faster response than the operator's manual action? We can rephrase the question as follows: given that the brain is faster than the hand (or foot or other effector), can one solve the problem that human manual actions are sometimes too sluggish to avoid a mishap when very little time is available by using the decoded brain activity to respond to a critical hazardous event?



    Impact of exercise programs among helicopter pilots with transient LBP

    https://bmcmusculoskeletdisord.biome...891-017-1631-0

    Update 24/06/2017
    Last edited by Jo Bowyer; 24-06-2017, 05:47 AM.
    Jo Bowyer
    Chartered Physiotherapist Registered Osteopath.
    "Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing,there is a field. I'll meet you there." Rumi

    Comment


    • #17
      This might be related to what you're asking:

      A person cannot possibly think about and be consciously aware of all of the individual muscle actions in compound and sequential movements – there are too many of them and they are too fast (see, e.g., Thach, 1996). They therefore can occur only through some process that is automatic and subconscious.
      Taken from this post on the Unified Theory thread.

      So, it sounds to me that all movement is, to a certain extent, unplanned/unconsciously executed.
      Patrick Septon, P.T.

      "In the high country of the mind one has to become adjusted to the thinner air of uncertainty..." -Robert M. Pirsig

      Comment


      • #18
        Nathan, it certainly IS a confounding issue.
        We appear to have a conscious decision making process, but that has less and less support from the modern neuroscience evidence (your own links are good examples of that).
        Planned versus unplanned is a almost arbitrary division now.

        In my opinion, "planned" means following a conscious (interaction with the therapist who instructs) process with as output, a specific movement with external parameters.

        An "unplanned movement" is a motion that does NOT arise from the conscious processing of external parameters defining that motion.

        Do I make sense?

        I would respectfully suggest choreographed versus unchoreographed motion, clumsy as that may be.
        This distinction describes more closely what I think of when discussing this issue.
        We don't see things as they are, we see things as WE are - Anais Nin

        I suppose it's easier to believe something than it is to understand it.
        Cmdr. Chris Hadfield on rise of poor / pseudo science

        Pain is a conscious correlate of the implicit perception of threat to body tissue - Lorimer Moseley

        We don't need a body to feel a body. Ronald Melzack

        Comment


        • #19
          Pat Churchland, on free will and self control.
          Carol Lynn Chevrier LMT
          " The truth is, people may see things differently. But they don't really want to. '' Don Draper.

          Comment


          • #20
            This debate between the nonconscious and the conscious 'state' has been going on for centuries.(I like to use the term nonconscious, as unconscious suggests a pathological state or anaesthesia)

            From what I read in various magazines (like the New Scientist) it will continue for a long time yet. FMRI studies do help but not with enough certainty that free will does not exist. Dave Eagleman also did a helpful TV series on the topic. Whatever happens, it will be a long time yet before people give up on the free will aspect.

            Comment


            • #21
              fMRI actually troubles me, given the way some in the neuroscience community try to use it as a way to tease out the question of free will. I felt it was best put by someone not too long ago who said "fMRI is like saying you know how a car works because you have thermal imaging cameras pointed at the hood and can see something lighting up underneath." You have to be willing to trust the equipment to tell you what's going on, and with stuff like crappy software doing analysis popping up, I don't know if it's got any answers:
              http://www.sciencealert.com/a-bug-in...tists-discover

              http://www.pnas.org/content/early/20...602413113.full

              I'm probably biased because I went and got a philosophy degree, but I think free will is fundamentally something not in the purview of neuroscience or science in general - it's a philosophical topic and as such won't have a comforting solution, only different prevailing viewpoints at one given time.

              Regarding movement: the concept outlined in the "I" illusion is basic materialism, and its fundamental problem as a philosophical argument is it's hard to prove the illusion definitively such that one can totally disprove free will. I tend to be more along the lines of compatibilism, where you can let free will and determinism coexist. If we were to talk about motion, we can say some motions are planned inasmuch as the person says "I want that water" and then reaches to get it. However, the exact expression of that particular reach, compared to all other reaches over their life, might be slightly different because most motor activity is unchoreographed. Moreso for motor activity that is entirely unplanned (say, where your hand chooses to rest itself when you're bored). If you take a materialist view, which is perfectly OK, you can't find statements like "I was drunk and hence could not consent to X" and "I did this of my own free choice" compatible, but a compatibilist can. My favorite compatibilist response to determinist arguments is that of blame - if we blame someone for an action, we implicitly assume they could have acted differently.

              You can always chalk that up to a problem of perception, but how do I therefore trust my perception that an fMRI is telling me what the molecules in my brain are doing?
              Last edited by mgallagh; 28-07-2016, 01:20 AM. Reason: formatting

              Comment

              Previously entered content was automatically saved. Restore or Discard.
              Auto-Saved
              x
              Insert: Thumbnail Small Medium Large Fullsize Remove  
              x
              x

              Please enter the six letters or digits that appear in the image below.

              Registration Image Refresh Image
              Working...
              X