Exp Brain Res (1995) 107:87-95
A. E. T y l e r . Z. H a s a n
Qualitative discrepancies between trunk muscle activity
and dynamic postural requirements at the initiation
of reaching movements performed while sitting
Received: 14 November 1944 / Accepted: 19 July 1995
Abstract Reaching movements are associated with
widespread, nonfocal muscle activity. That activity is of-
ten assumed to play a postural role. We tested this as-
sumption for the trunk muscles at the initiation of reach-
ing movements with the following question. Does initial
trunk muscle activity play a dynamic postural role by re-
sisting the segmental interactive effects of the arm move-
ment on the trunk? Seated subjects performed bilateral
reaching movements while target direction was systemat-
ically varied. Muscle activity was recorded from flexors
and extensors of the trunk and shoulder. Trunk muscle
activity was compared with trunk torques calculated
from simulations of reaching movements in which the
trunk was modeled to stay still. Recorded trunk nmscle
activity was in qualitative agreement with torque predic-
tions for only some target directions, suggesting that the
nervous system does not activate trunk muscles across all
target directions to counteract postural disturbances at
the initiation of reaching movements.
Key words E l e c t r o m y o g r a p h y - Posture 9 Multijoint 9
Arm movements 9Human
Introduction
Most voluntary movements involve many segments of
the body. Often the segments and muscles that are ex-
plicitly task-specified are termed "focal" (Cordo and
Nashner 1982). Focal activity is usually associated with
motion and muscle activity of nonfocal segments. In
reaching movements, for example, the arm motion and
arm muscle activity are focal. When arm movements are
A. E. Tyler(~)
Physical Therapy Department, St. Ambrose University,
518 W. Locust St., Davenport, IA 52803 USA
Fax: +1-319-333-6410
Z. Hasan
College of AssociatedHealth Professions,
University of Illinois at Chicago (M/C 898),
1919 W. TaylorSt., Rm. 447, Chicago, IL 60612-7251, USA
9 Springer-Verlag 1995
performed while standing, nonfocal muscle activity is
observed at the ankle, knee, hip, trunk, and neck
(Belen'kii et al. 1967; Bouisset and Zattara 1988; Gu-
rfinkel et al. 1988; Lee et al. 1987). This nonfocal mus-
cle activity has been termed "associated postural adjust-
ment" (Cordo and Nashner 1982) because some of it un-
doubtedly prevents the body from being toppled by the
motion of the arm; if there were no such activity, the
body would fall over (Ramos and Stark 1990).
Postural disturbances due to voluntary movements
can be classified as dynamic or static (Oddsson and
Thorstensson 1987). Static disturbances arise fi-om
changes in gravitational torques. As a voluntary move-
ment is performed, the locations of the centers of mass
of the body segments change and so too must the muscle
activity to achieve gravitational equilibrium. Dynamic
disturbances arise from the interactive effects of the mo-
tion of one body segment on other body segments (Hol-
Ierbach and Flash 1982; Hoy and Zemicke 1985; Zajac
and Gordon 1989). These dynamic disturbances require
muscle activity that adequately counteracts the destabi-
lizing forces arising from segment accelerations and ve-
locities. The experiments presented here were designed
to examine the effectiveness of trunk muscle activity in
counteracting the dynamic disturbances arising from arm
movements.
For arm movements performed while standing, there
are many nonfocal segments. The mechanical complexi-
ties of so many segments make it difficult to identify any
given muscle's activity as postural. We have therefore
chosen to reduce the postural complexity of the reaching
movement by reducing the number of nonfocal seg-
ments. We examined the postural behavior of nonfocal
muscles during arm reaching movements performed
while sitting. The seated position in effect limits the
body's motion to three segments (the trunk/head, the up-
per arms, and the forearms/hands). A three-segment me-
chanical system still retains sufficient complexity to ad-
dress postural issues, but is simple enough to yield
meaningful results. For this reaching task, the action of
the arm is considered focal, while the action of the trunk
88
is c o n s i d e r e d n o n f o c a l . B y s y s t e m a t i c a l l y v a r y i n g target
direction, w e s y s t e m a t i c a l l y v a r i e d the m a g n i t u d e a n d di-
r e c t i o n o f the d y n a m i c d i s t u r b a n c e s to posture.
W e tested the p o s s i b l e p o s t u r a l r u l e that t r u n k m u s c l e
activity at the i n i t i a t i o n o f r e a c h i n g is q u a l i t a t i v e l y ap-
p r o p r i a t e to c o u n t e r a c t the r e a c t i o n force o n the t r u n k
d u e to the m o t i o n o f the arm. W e tested this rule b y c o m -
p a r i n g r e c o r d e d t r u n k m u s c l e activity d u r i n g a r m r e a c h -
i n g to t r u n k m u s c l e t o r q u e s c a l c u l a t e d f r o m s i m u l a t e d
a r m m o v e m e n t s . T h e t r u n k in these s i m u l a t i o n s was as-
s u m e d to b e h a v e as a p e r f e c t p o s t u r a l s e g m e n t i n that it
s u c c e s s f u l l y r e s i s t e d the s e g m e n t a l i n t e r a c t i v e effects o f
a r m m o v e m e n t s a n d r e m a i n e d still.
Certainly, nonfocal muscle activity must succeed in
p r e v e n t i n g the p o s t u r a l d i s t u r b a n c e o f a focal m o v e m e n t
f r o m t o p p l i n g the body. Is it e v i d e n t at the i n i t i a t i o n o f
r e a c h i n g that the n e r v o u s s y s t e m p l a n s to p e r f o r m this
p o s t u r a l role? M o v e m e n t i n i t i a t i o n w a s e x a m i n e d b e -
c a u s e it is at this p o i n t that the m u s c l e activity is m o s t
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f the p r e p l a n n e d i n t e n t o f the c e n t r a l ner-
v o u s s y s t e m , w i t h o u t the i n f l u e n c e o f m o t i o n - r e l a t e d
feedback.
Materials and methods
Subjects and task
Five normal, healthy adult subjects (30-40 years old), two female
and three male, volunteered for this study from among University
students and staff. Informed consent was obtained following the
guidelines of the University of Arizona.
Seated subjects performed point-to-point reaching movements
to a target that was always visible. The movements were per-
formed with both arms moving symmetrically in the vertical
plane. Subjects were instructed to move the arms as fast as possi-
ble in a single, smooth movement and to avoid corrective move-
ments. Subjects were given no specific instructions regarding
trunk behavior. The experiments presented here are part of a larger
project on reaching movements in which target direction, target
distance, and the premovement configuration of the subjects were
systematically varied (Tyler 1994). Presented here are data from
the experiments in which only target direction was varied.
Apparatus
Subjects were seated throughout the experiment, effectively limit-
ing the system under study to the trunk, head, and arms. Move-
ment of the trunk, head, shoulder, and elbow joints was unre-
strained, but a splint was fitted to the right wrist. Subjects per-
formed the arm movements without back support of the chair; they
were only allowed to use the back of the chair as support between
trials. Subjects kept their feet on the floor or supported by a stable
foot stool. Subjects held a lightweight polystyrene handle in both
hands to insure symmetry of movement of the left and right arms.
Approximately 0.5 m to the left of the chair was a wall to which
was attached an adjustable target apparatus. The target apparatus
consisted of a dual-rod system which included a marker for the
premovement position of the fingertip and a small cube of foam
that served as the target to which the subject moved the fingertip.
This dual-rod apparatus allowed for the position of the target to be
changed from trial to trial. The subject never came in physical
contact with the target apparatus; instead, premovement and post-
movement positions of the left fingertip were immediately adja-
cent to the markers.
Surface bipolar electrodes were used to collect electromyo-
graphic (EMG) data. All EMG activity was recorded from the
right side of the body. Left-right symmetry of EMG signals was
verified in preliminary experiments. EMG recordings were made
from representative flexors and extensors of the trunk and shoul-
der. Recordings from trunk extensors, the paraspinal muscles
(erector spinae), were taken at the L2 level, as defined by the ver-
tebral spinous process, 3 cm from midline. To monitor trunk flexor
muscle activity, electrodes were placed over the abdominal mus-
cles at the level of the umbilicus, 8 cm from midline. The anterior
deltoid muscle was the shoulder flexor monitored, and the posteri-
or deltoid was the shoulder extensor monitored. EMG signals were
amplified, rectified, filtered (approximately 5 ms time constant),
and stored for later analysis. The data were collected as digital sig-
nals, sampled every 3 ms.
Two single-axis, bidirectional accelerometers were used to
identify the onset of movement. One accelerometer was attached
to the right wrist splint via a moveable mount. This accelerome-
ter's axis was aligned with target direction prior to each movement
trial to make the identification of the onset of arm movement as
clear as possible. Another accelerometer was mounted on a fabric
harness that the subject wore about his or her trunk. The acceler-
ometer was located on the subject's back, below the cervical re-
gion of the spine, between T1 and T3, and it was aligned to mea-
sure trunk accelerations along an anterior-posterior axis. Trunk po-
sition was measured with a force transducer attached to a compli-
ant spring. The force transducer was mounted on a table behind
the subject and was attached to the fabric harness worn by the sub-
ject via a long band of elastic, thereby allowing the force signal to
be analyzed as a position signal. Acceleration and position signals
were sampled every 3 ms and digitally recorded simultaneously
with EMG signals.
Procedure
The body of the experiment involved repeated trials in which a
single trial consisted of a single reaching movement. The pre-
movement configuration of the body was the same for all reaching
movements; the trunk was vertical, the upper arms were at an an-
gle of 45 ~ from vertical, and the elbow joints were flexed to 90 ~
(see stick figure in Fig. 1). Prior to each trial, the subject used a
digital readout of the voltage signal from the trunk position trans-
ducer to set the position of the trunk. The subject set the position
of the arm by aligning the left fingertip with the premovement
marker on the target apparatus. Also prior to each trial, the subject
was allowed one or two practice reaches to become familiar with
the task and the target direction. Arm movements were cued by an
auditory "go" signal (beep) presented to the subject via head-
phones. The subject was instructed to move as soon as possible af-
ter the go signal. For each trial, 1200 ms of data were recorded
starting 100 ms before the go signal. Trials were repeated if the
subject did not reach the target, the movement was not smooth, or
the movement was too late or too slow to be captured within the
1200-ms recording period. Subjects performed reaching move-
ments to 22-24 different target directions. Target direction (|
defined as the angle between an external vertical axis and target
direction from the fingertip, was varied from trial to trial. The first
trial usually started with @=0 ~ (directly upward from the fingertip)
and increased (toward the subject) in 15 ~ increments to | ~
(see stick figure in Fig. 2). In addition, one subject (GK) also per-
formed reaches starting from | ~ and decreasing in 15 ~ incre-
ments to | ~ The distance of the target from the fingertip was a
constant 25 cm.
Simulation
Required muscle torques for simulated reaching movements were
calculated to test the hypothesis that the nervous system produces
trunk muscle activity at the initiation of movement that is appro-
priate to resist the dynamic postural disturbances caused by arm

reaching movements. For these calculations, the body was defined
as a three-segment system consisting of the head/trunk, upper
arms, and forearms/hands. The simulated movements were bilater-
al arm reaching movements in the sagittal plane during which the
trunk/head segment did not move. This simulated lack of move-
ment of the trunk was not intended to mimic actual trunk behavior
as measured in the experiments. Indeed, the trunk does move (see
Fig. 1 for an example). Instead, this simulated behavior was used
to identify the trunk muscle torque that would be required if the
muscles acted to keep the trunk still.
In the simulation, movements of the arm segments were speci-
fied so that the distal tip of the arm moved in a straight-line path to
the target with a bell-shaped velocity profile. This specification
was based on considerable experimental data for arm reaching
movements (Atkeson and Hollerbach 1985; Hollerbach and Flash
1982; Iannone et al. 1991; Kaminski et al. 1992; Morasso 1981).
Parameter values that were necessary to calculate muscle torque
included segment lengths, segment inertial characteristics, pre-
movement configuration of the segments, movement duration, tar-
get distance, and target direction. Segment lengths were measured
on each subject. These lengths were used to calculate segment in-
ertial characteristics (mass, location of center of mass, moment of
inertia about center of mass) using the regression equations of
Zatsiorsky and Seluyanov (1983; see Tyler 1994 for details). Pre-
movement configuration of the segments was specified as in the
experiments. Target direction was varied for each simulation fi'om
| ~ to 0=345 ~ in increments of 15 ~ as was used in the experi-
ments. Movement duration was a constant 0.4 s for all simulations.
Target distance was specified to be 25 cm for all simulations.
One limitation of simulating the reaching movements with a
three-segment system is that the potential for motion at the scapu-
la was ignored. The consequence of this limitation is that, for
some target directions (-270-315~ the target distance of 25 cm
for the simulations was beyond arm's length; the distal tip of the
arm in the simulated movements could not reach the target. How-
ever, this limitation did not affect our conclusions, because we
were not concerned with the magnitudes of torques per se, but just
their initial directions (flexor or extensor). For the simulations
when the target was beyond arm's length, the direction of the
torque at movement onset could still be determined. For display
purposes only, we have shown a trace of the calculated torque in
Fig. 4B (0=285 ~ from a simulated reach to 23 cm; the direction
of change in torque at movement onset would be the same as for a
reach to 25 cm.
In the simulations, muscle torques at the trunk, shoulder, and
elbow represent the sum of torques produced by all muscles at
those joints (i.e., the resultant muscle torque) rather than torque
values of individual muscles. Flexor torque was defined as posi-
tive; extensor torque was defined as negative. Muscle torque was
averaged over the first 50 ms of the simulated movement. This
"torque at movement onset" was calculated for all target direc-
tions. When calculated in this way, trunk torque at movement on-
set varied approximately sinusoidally with target direction, so that
peak calculated values roughly corresponded to | ~ (extensor
peak) and | ~ (flexor peak).
Trunk torque at movement onset was used as a qualitative indi-
cator of the muscle torque required at the beginning of an arm
movement to resist trunk motion. It was then possible to compare
the range of target directions for these calculated torques to the
variation of experimentally obtained EMG values across target di-
rection to see if initial changes in EMG were qualitatively consis-
tent with the trunk torques calculated in the simulations.
Quantification of EMG
Resting levels of EMG (with the muscles as relaxed as possible)
obtained at the beginning of each experiment were subtracted from
the EMG data from the movement trials so that only activity above
resting level was evaluated. Muscle activity at movement onset
was examined to determine whether that activity fulfilled a postur-
al role. We wanted to determine whether the first change in trunk
89
(9= 180
ABD
PAR
'3"IV I ,['l ] 9
TPOS ~ - ~
TACC "
ADL
I
PDL - "
Ii ~l }20 m/s 2
WACC
I I I I I I
-400 -200 0 200 400 600 800
Time (ms)
Fig. 1 Determination of windows for calculating EMG amplitude.
Data are from a single trial, subject A.N. The stick figure indicates
target direction and premovement configuration of the body. Trac-
es are from top: abdominal EMG (ABD), paraspinal EMG (PAR),
trunk position (TPOS), trunk acceleration (TACC), anterior deltoid
EMG (ADL), posterior deltoid EMG (PDL), wrist acceleration
(WACC). PAR and PDL increase downward. Upward deflections
in TPOS and TACC indicate forward direction. The dashed verti-
cal line indicates the onset of wrist acceleration. The solid vertical
lines delimit the windows used for quantifying EMG. For this sub-
ject, the first window began 30 ms before the onset of wrist accel-
eration; the third window ended 261 ms after the onset of wrist ac-
celeration; and each window was 97 ms in duration. Mean ampli-
tude values from the first window (shaded) were used as represen-
tatives of EMG activity at movement onset (O, target direction)
muscle activity was in the net flexor direction (an increase in ab-
dominal activity or a decrease in paraspinal activity) or in the net
extensor direction (a decrease in abdominal activity or an increase
in paraspinal activity). Identifying such a change, however, pre-
sented difficulties. Identification of onsets of bursts and pauses
was not uniformly possible because of certain characteristics of
the EMG patterns. Baseline activity in the paraspinals and the fre-
quent lack of any modulation in the abdominal muscles often
made it difficult to determine onsets of bursts or pauses. Because
of these difficulties, we chose instead to examine EMG amplitudes
across a time window that was temporally constant with respect to
movement onset. This time window at movement onset was speci-
fied separately for each subject based on the timing of the overall
burst pattern of abdominal and paraspinal muscles.
Because the trunk muscles typically showed a reciprocal three-
burst pattern, three time windows were first identified. An exam-
ple of how these windows were determined is presented in Fig. 1.
For a given subject, an overall window width was determined from
a single trial in which the abdominal muscles displayed two bursts
(near @=180~ The abdominal EMG trace was used because of its
lack of premovement and postmovement baseline activity and the
subsequent ease of determining onsets and offsets of bursts. The
beginning of the overall window was chosen as the onset of the
first abdominal burst and the end of the overall window was cho-
sen as the offset of the second abdominal burst. The timing of this
overall window relative to the onset of wrist acceleration was then
determined. The same overall window, with the same relative tim-
90
ing to the onset of wrist acceleration, was then applied to all the
EMG data for all the muscles for a single subject. For each sub-
ject, a different overall window was determined, and overall win-
dow width and relative timing to the onset of wrist acceleration
varied from subject to subject. This overall window was then sub-
divided into three windows of equal duration. The first of these
windows straddled the onset of arm movement. The duration of
this first window ranged from 94 to 104 ms across all subjects.
The mean amplitude of the EMG within this first window was
used as a measure of EMG activity at movement onset. To normal-
ize EMG values, EMG amplitude was first averaged over each of
the three windows as identified above. EMG amplitude was also
averaged over the first 90 ms (premovement) and the last 90 ms
(postmovement) of each trial. EMG amplitudes were then normal-
ized per muscle to the maximum and minimum EMG values ob-
tained from these premovement, movement, and postmovement
windows.
Because EMG amplitudes from the first movement window
were used to address posture control issues, data were scrutinized
to verify that the window did indeed capture the first change in
EMG (burst or pause) from baseline activity, i.e., the activity asso-
ciated with movement initiation. Paraspinal and abdominal EMG
traces within the time boundaries of this window were visually in-
spected from a total of 131 trials (all subjects, all target direc-
tions). The window was considered to capture accurately the ini-
tial change of an EMG trace if the window was entirely filled with
a burst or a pause and that burst or pause was the first change in
EMG from baseline. The window clearly and accurately captured
bursts and pauses in 89% of all cases. In an additional 10% of all
cases, the window captured a slightly "contaminated" view of the
initial change in EMG. In these instances, the window contained
part of a burst and part of a pause. The consequence of this con-
tamination was that values of mean EMG amplitude for these trac-
es were moderated; they were either slightly higher or lower than
would have occurred if the window had more accurately captured
the first change in EMG. In 1% of all cases, the window captured
activity that was not representative of the initial change in EMG.
In these cases, the window either captured a burst when a pause
was the initial change in EMG or it captured a pause when a burst
was an initial change in EMG. These instances did inject some
scatter to the data but did not alter the overall relationship of EMG
to target direction.
Results
General characteristics of trunk muscle E M G
During arm movements, both the paraspinal and the ab-
dominal muscles displayed considerable myoelectric ac-
tivity modulated in bursts and pauses. Distinct patterns
of activity were apparent in single trials. Figure 2 con-
tains examples f r o m one subject o f E M G activity across
the full range o f target directions. In Fig. 2A, each trace
represents the abdominal E M G activity for a single trial,
and each trial a different target direction. The traces were
temporally aligned with respect to the onset of wrist ac-
celeration. Figure 2B is a similar view of paraspinal
E M G traces.
The data in Fig. 2 display certain characteristics that
were c o m m o n to all subjects. Before the arm movement,
there was very low baseline activity in the abdominal
muscles, but considerable activity in the paraspinal mus-
cles. Trunk muscle activity during the arm movements
was characterized by bursts and pauses o f activity. Post-
m o v e m e n t levels o f paraspinal E M G activity varied with
target direction as static postural requirements varied.
During arm movements, abdominal and paraspinal activ-
ity was reciprocal, in that the bursts in the antagonist pair
by and large did not temporally overlap. There were
some target directions for which there was little or no
modulation of abdominal E M G activity during the arm
m o v e m e n t (e.g., target directions 13=90-105 ~ in
Fig. 2A). For the paraspinal muscles, there were some
target directions for which the initial change in activity
was a decrease from baseline activity (pause) instead of
an increase (burst; e.g., target directions 13=105-285 ~ in
Fig. 2B). There appeared to be "transitional" target di-
rections for which the burst pattern was not as distinct.
In general, the amplitude o f the bursts in the paraspinal
and abdominal muscles varied with target direction.
The reciprocal nature o f the E M G activity that was
observed in the individual traces was also apparent in the
E M G amplitudes f r o m the window associated with
m o v e m e n t onset (Fig. 3). For this window, the highest
levels o f abdominal E M G activity were obtained for tar-
get directions near 13=180 ~ and the highest levels o f
paraspinal E M G activity were obtained for target direc-
tions near 13=0 ~.
Comparison o f E M G activity with postural requirements
One possible strategy that the nervous system might use
to control the action o f the trunk during arm movements
is to resist the segmental interactive effects of the arm on
the trunk in an effort to keep the trunk still. To test this
possibility, trunk muscle torques during simulated reach-
ing movements were calculated that would be appropri-
ate to prevent the trunk f r o m moving. Over approximate-
ly half the entire range o f target directions, trunk torque
at m o v e m e n t onset was calculated to be in the flexor di-
rection. The direction (flexor or extensor) o f calculated
torque at m o v e m e n t onset was then c o m p a r e d with the
direction o f experimentally observed trunk muscle activi-
ty associated with m o v e m e n t onset to determine whether
the observed E M G was qualitatively appropriate to resist
trunk motion imposed by segmental effects of arm move-
ment.
Figure 3 contains data for all subjects of mean E M G
amplitude within the time window associated with move-
ment onset. Systematic variation o f abdominal and para-
spinal E M G activity across target directions is apparent
for all subjects. There are target directions in which para-
spinal E M G levels are high and abdominal E M G levels
are low (suggesting an extensor torque dominance at
m o v e m e n t onset), and other target directions for which
the opposite is true (suggesting a flexor torque domi-
nance at m o v e m e n t onset). Also on each graph are shad-
ed areas that represent the target direction range over
which an extensor torque was calculated to prevent the
trunk f r o m m o v i n g at the beginning o f arm movement.
There was an imperfect overlap of target direction ranges
for which both paraspinal E M G activity was high (and
abdominal E M G activity was low) and for which simula-
tions indicated trunk torque at m o v e m e n t onset in the ex-

A. Abdominal EMG
(9=0
90
. . . . . . . . J
180
270
I ' I '
-400 -200 0 200 400
Fig. 2A,B Trunk muscle activity across all target directions. Data
are from subject G.Y. Each trace represents a single trial and each
trial a different target direction. Target direction (O) was varied in
15~ increments and is indicated to the left of some of the traces.
The stick figure indicates the premovement configuration of the
body and target direction convention. Traces were aligned to the
onset of wrist acceleration (time 0 ms). Aligned so, modulation of
the burst pattern with target direction became evident. A Abdomi-
nal EMG. Some target directions were associated with a large
burst of activity approximately 100 ms after the onset of wrist ac-
celeration; while other target directions were associated with a
double burst of activity beginning slightly before the onset of wrist
acceleration and ending approximately 300 ms later. B Paraspinal
EMG. The single and double burst ranges are approximately oppo-
site in direction to those for the abdominal EMG. In addition to
the bursts and pauses associated with arm movements, consider-
able baseline activity was observed before and after arm move-
ment. All subjects showed similar patterns
91
0
O 9- 9
"27o
B. Paraspinal EMG
600 800 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 800
Time (ms)
tensor direction to prevent the trunk from moving. For
subject G.K., for example, the shaded areas coincided
with target directions in which paraspinal E M G activity
was high and abdominal E M G activity was low; E M G
activity and calculated net trunk muscle torques, there-
fore, were qualitatively in agreement ((9=330-135~ In
the unshaded target direction range, however, there were
also target directions in which paraspinal E M G activity
was high and abdominal E M G activity was low; E M G
activity and calculated trunk muscle torque were then
qualitatively in opposition ((9=210-315~ Such qualita-
tive discrepancies between the E M G data and simula-
tions suggest that if the nervous system acts to resist
trunk motion at the beginning o f arm movements, it does
not do so for the entire range o f target directions 9 Results
from all the subjects were qualitatively similar, although
92

ABD 0 specific target direction ranges for EMG levels and cal-
culated torques varied somewhat.
PAR 9 Figure 4 provides examples from single trials that fur-
- o

ther illustrate the point that trunk muscle EMG activity

i!i i! i and predicted trunk torque did not agree. Data are from a
, : o ............ Sub single subject. Figure 4A contains EMG data for all tar-
: o II get directions (the same data and shaded area as in Fig. 3
oOe ~ ,; GK for subject A.N., but on a polar graph). In Fig. 4B, single
o 9~ 9 trials from two target directions are shown in which the
o trunk muscle activity (shown on the left) was in conflict
,9 9 9 o o o o
o oo 8 e.oo o oooo with the trunk torque predicted to resist dynamic postur-
. . . . . I . . . . . I . . . . . I . . . . .
al disturbances (shown on the right). For target direction
| for example, the first change in trunk muscle
activity was an increase inflexor muscle (abdominal) ac-
tivity, whereas the predicted change in trunk torque was
i!~!i!i:i 'i)i!i in the extensor direction.
[ ~i:~:i~~i~
o Sub
; 6 oo GY Discussion

From our experiments it is clear that rapid reaching

movements performed while sitting entail considerable
trunk muscle activity. For these bilateral arm move-
ments, trunk flexors and extensors displayed certain

li!io!!!i~~i i~i:i!ii~i~?i~ 0
characteristics that were common to all of the subjects
we tested: (1) abdominal and paraspinal muscles were
active in distinctly reciprocal bursts; (2) the pattern of
,,, iiili'iiii, iii 0 ~'~'~~', ~::2#,
' ~:~,
trunk muscle activity varied systematically with target
S ub direction; and (3) this systematic variation was evident in
= ,.0 single trials.
i D 13
The reciprocal nature of the activity provided the op-
E
portunity to identify clearly the direction (flexor or ex-
o
Z tensor) of EMG activity associated with the initiation of
arm movement. We evaluated that muscle activity by
measuring the mean amplitude of EMG activity over a
temporally constant window that encompassed move-
o 9
ment initiation. Averaging EMG amplitude in this way
did not provide information about burst onsets or precise
iO!~i 84
magnitudes of bursts. It did, however, provide a qualita-
o o o 9 9 !iiiiii ili iill Sub tively accurate view of the direction of the first change in
0
AN trunk muscle activity associated with the reaching move-
ments.
By comparing the trunk muscle activity with predict-
ed trunk torque, we tested whether the intent of the ner-
vous system was to govern the trunk by a postural rule.
Rather than comparing predicted trunk torque with mea-
sured trunk EMG for quantitative agreement (magni-
tude), we examined the data for qualitative agreement;

i' i~i i ~~!iili Sub Fig. 3 Trunk muscle activity at movement onset compared with
,~i!ii~,iilli!i dynamic postural requirements. Mean normalized amplitudes of
AS trunk muscle activity in the window associated with movement
onset are plotted across target direction (abdominal EMG, empty
o v o. o 9 circles; paraspinal EMG, filled circles). Subjects' initials are indi-
cated to the right. The shaded areas indicate the ranges of target
99 . ~9o o o oo direction over which was calculated an extensor torque at the
' '1 . . . . . I . . . . . I trunk to prevent the trunk from moving at the beginning of arm
90 180 270 360 movement. Although there was some agreement of torque require-
ments from the simulations with EMG data, this agreement did not
T a r g e t Direction | (deg) hold for all target directions

A.
90
180 ~
B.
ABD ~ . ........~ ....
PAR
ABD ~ ~ ~ ~ d ~ , + ~ * * ~ . ~ ~.~,,..,~
PAR
100ms
Fig. 4A,B Exceptions to postural predictions. Data are from sub-
ject A.N. A Trunk muscle activity at movement onset. Data are the
same as in Fig. 3, but on a polar graph. The angle indicates target
direction, and the distance from the center indicates magnitude of
normalized EMG; the outer circle represents 100% and the inner
circle is at 50%. Abdominal EMG, empty circles; paraspinal
EMG, filled circles. The shaded area indicates the range of target
direction over which was predicted extensor torque for dynamic
postural requirements (0=314-136~ Two tick marks on the out-
side of the graph indicate target directions where torque predic-
tions and EMG did not agree. These trials are shown in B. B Ex-
ceptions to dynamic postural requirements. To the left are abdomi-
nal (ABD) and paraspinal (PAR, increasing downward) EMG trac-
es and to the right are torque traces for simulations of arm reaches
to the corresponding target directions. Flexor torques are positive.
The dotted horizontal line indicates the premovement static torque
level. For target direction | ~, the initial change in predicted
torque was in the extensor direction, while the initial change in
EMG was in the flexor direction. For target direction @=285 ~ the
initial change in predicted torque was in the flexor direction while
the initial change in EMG was in the extensor direction. Note that,
for this target direction, the torque trace that is shown was calcu-
lated for a simulated reach with a target distance of 23 cm instead
of 25 cm. This target distance was very near the maximum simu-
lated reach distance, resulting in a noticeably high calculated trunk
torque at the end of the movement time
93
OO
ABD O
PAR 9
!70 ~
Q=105
o -30
I--
v
(9=285
~176
1
o -30
I..-
100ms
do both p r e d i c t e d torque and m e a s u r e d E M G go in the
s a m e direction (flexor or extensor) at the initiation o f
m o v e m e n t ? W h i l e w e o b s e r v e d qualitative a g r e e m e n t
a m o n g all subjects for s o m e target directions, and a m o n g
s o m e subjects for m o s t target directions, the p o s t u r a l rule
o f resisting d y n a m i c d i s t u r b a n c e s d i d not h o l d qualita-
tively for all target directions. In effect, the n e r v o u s
s y s t e m does not a p p e a r to try, for all target directions, to
k e e p the trunk still in the face o f a r m m o v e m e n t s that
perturb the trunk.
I n d e e d , in our e x p e r i m e n t s , there was m o v e m e n t o f
the trunk a s s o c i a t e d with the a r m m o v e m e n t (see the
T P O S trace, Fig. 1). T h e absolute value o f trunk dis-
p l a c e m e n t s c a r c e l y changed, however, over the t e m p o r a l
w i n d o w w e d e f i n e d for evaluating initial c h a n g e s in
E M G activity; the m e a n trunk d i s p l a c e m e n t [as d e f i n e d
b y the m e a n o f the last five s a m p l e s (15 ms) o f the tem-
p o r a l w i n d o w m i n u s the m e a n o f the first five s a m p l e s o f
the t e m p o r a l w i n d o w ] was 2.7+2.7 m m ( m e a n + s t a n d a r d
deviation; all subjects, all trials). In addition, there was
no difference in absolute value o f trunk d i s p l a c e m e n t be-
t w e e n those trials in w h i c h trunk E M G was in qualitative
a g r e e m e n t with c a l c u l a t e d trunk torque and those trials
in w h i c h trunk E M G d i d not q u a l i t a t i v e l y agree with cal-
c u l a t e d trunk torque ( m e a n difference b e t w e e n the two
94
groups 0.39 ram; P=0.24 for a one-tailed, unpaired t-
test). Much of the trunk motion occurred after this tem-
poral window. Trajectories of the trunk during the course
of the arm movements did display some consistencies
from subject to subject, but the description of this behav-
ior is outside the scope of the present paper on move-
ment initiation.
One alternative control possibility is that the nervous
system is only concerned with static, or position-depen-
dent, requirements; the nervous system produces a move-
ment (a change in position) by activating those muscles
necessary to hold the body in the desired final position.
In the context of the experiments presented here, this
strategy would be expressed by initial changes in trunk
muscle EMG activity that are in the same direction as the
changes in trunk muscle EMG from premovement levels
to postmovement levels. In Fig. 2, postmovement levels
of paraspinal EMG are shown to vary with target direc-
tion as the center of mass of the arms varies with target
direction. However, there are many trials in which the
initial change in paraspinal EMG activity is clearly op-
posite to this change in the postmovement paraspinal
EMG activity (e.g., 0=75 ~ or 0=255~ Therefore, this
simplistic possibility for posture control is not supported
by our data.
Reasons have been advanced in support of the notion
that the nervous system might want to keep the trunk still
during arm movements. When planar reaching move-
ments involve more than two segments, as do those
movements we studied, the number of mechanical de-
grees of freedom make it possible for the segments to
follow any path as the distal tip of the arm moves from
one point to another. Even specifying the entire trajecto-
ry of the distal tip still leaves the segments free to follow
an infinite number of paths (Soechting and Flanders
1991). It has been suggested that the nervous system
handles this redundancy problem by activating muscles
so as to reduce the degrees of freedom of a movement
(Bernstein 1967). In reaching movements, if the trunk
were held still, the number of segments would in effect
be reduced to two, thereby reducing the mechanical
complexity of the movement. Trunk muscle activity in
agreement with the trunk torques as we calculated them
would have tended to keep the trunk still and thus would
have acted to reduce the effective number of segments
and mechanical degrees of freedom of the system, mak-
ing the nervous system's "calculation" of the arm move-
ment somewhat simpler.
Most experiments on the postural nature of nonfocal
muscle activity during arm movements have involved
movements performed while standing (Belen'kii et al.
1967; Bouisset and Zattara 1988; Cord| and Nashner
1982; Friedli et al. 1984; Lee 1980). The bilateral arm
swings used by Bouisset and Zattara (1988) and the bi-
lateral elbow flexions used by Friedli, et al. (1984) have
both shown a burst of paraspinal activity at the onset of
the arm movement. We have observed similar paraspinal
activity on comparable arm swings performed while sit-
ting in our pilot experiments as well as for the arm
reaching movements upward (near |176 see Fig. 2) in
the present paper.
The postural nature of nonfocal muscle activity has
been examined for a variety of arm movements per-
formed while standing, including arm swings up and
down (Belen'kii et al. 1967; Bouisset and Zattara 1988;
Horak et al. 1984; Lee 1980), arm pushes and pulls
(Cord| and Nashner 1982; Woollacott et al. 1984), and
elbow flexions and extensions (Friedli et al. 1984). For
these tasks, the commonly accepted control rule for non-
focal muscles is that they act to resist disturbances creat-
ed by the focal movement (Belen'kii et al. 1967;
C16ment et al. 1984; Lee et al. 1987). The conclusion
that nonfocal muscle activity is performing a postural
role by resisting the effects of the focal movement seems
appropriate for these movements, but may not apply
across a greater range of arm movements. For example,
the reaching movements in our experiments to the two
target directions | ~ and 180 ~ appear to be quite simi-
lar to the arm-swing tasks used by others, and they do re-
sult in trunk muscle activity that is qualitatively in oppo-
sition to the segmental interactive effects of the arm
movement (Fig. 4A). The same does not appear to be so
for all target directions (Fig. 4B); the postural control
strategy that appears reasonable for a limited scope of
arm movements (e.g., arm swings up and down) may not
apply to a broader range of arm movements.
In our experiments, trunk muscle activity was not
broadly consistent with the tested postural rule. Al-
though trunk muscle activity did not agree with postural
predictions for all target directions, these results do not
completely negate the idea that the trunk muscles play a
postural role. We evaluated this postural rule for move-
ment initiation only, with the notion that muscle activity
at movement initiation was considered indicative of the
preplanned intent of the nervous system. A possible pos-
tural role for trunk muscle activity later in the movement
remains to be tested.
Acknowledgements We are most grateful to Dr. Gall Koshland
for helpful comments and review throughout this research project.
Thanks also go to Kee Koon Chua for technical assistance. This
work was done in the Department of Physiology at the University
of Arizona in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Ph.D.
degree, and was supported by NIH grants NS19407 and NS07309.
Some of this work has been presented in abstract form.
References
Atkeson CG, Hollerbach JM (1985) Kinematic features of unre-
strained vertical arm movements. J Neurosci 5:2318-2330
Belen'kii VY, Gurfinkel VS, Pal'tsev YI (1967) Elements of con-
trol of voluntary movements. Biofizika 12:135-141
Bernstein N (1967) The co-ordination and regulation of move-
ments. Pergamon, Oxford
Bouisset S, Zattara M (1988) Anticipatory postural adjustments
and dynamic asymmetry of voluntary movement. In: Gurfinkel
VS, Ioffe ME, Massion J, Roll JP (eds) Stance and motion
facts and concepts. Plenum, New York, pp 177-183
Cldment G, Gurfinkel VS, Lestienne F, Lipshits MI, Popov KE
(1984) Adaptation of postural control to weightlessness. Exp
Brain Res 57:61-72

Cordo PJ, Nashner LM (1982) Properties of postural adjustments
associated with rapid arm movements. J Neurophysiol 47:
287-302
Friedli WG, Hallett M, Simon SR (1984) Postural adjustments as-
sociated with rapid voluntary arm movements. 1. Electromyo-
graphic data. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatr 47:611-622
Gurfinkel VS, Lipshits MI, Lestienne FG (1988) Anticipatory
neck muscle activity associated with rapid arm movements.
Neurosci Lett 94:104-108
Hollerbach JM, Flash T (1982) Dynamic interactions between
limb segments during planar arm movement. Biol Cybern 44:
67-77
Horak FB, Esselman R Anderson ME, Lynch MK (1984) The ef-
fects of movement velocity, mass displaced, and task certainty
on associated postural adjustments made by normal and hemi-
plegic individuals. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatr 47:1020-
1028
Hoy MG, Zernicke RF (1985) Modulation of limb dynamics in the
swing phase of locomotion. J Biomech 18:49-60
Iannone AM, Hallett M, Stanhope S, Vail R (1991) Arm and trunk
synergies in pointing movements in normal subjects and pa-
tients with cerebellar defecits. Soc Neurosci Abstr 17:1387
Kaminski TR, Bock C, Gentile AM (1992) Coordination between
arm and trunk motion during rapid pointing movements. Soc
Neurosci Abstr 18:518
Lee WA (1980) Anticipatory control of postural and task muscles
during rapid arm flexion. J Mot B ehav 12:185-196
Lee WA, Buchanan TS, Rogers MW (1987) Effects of arm accel-
eration and behavioral conditions on the organization of pos-
rural adjustments during arm flexion. Exp Brain Res 66:
257-270
95
Morasso P (1981) Spatial control of arm movements. Exp Brain
Res 42:223-227
Oddsson L, Thorstensson A (1987) Fast voluntary trunk flexion
movements in standing: motor patterns. Acta Physiol Scand
129:93-106
Ramos CF, Stark LW (1990) Postural maintenance during move-
ment: simulations of a two joint model. Biol Cybern 63:
363-375
Soechting JF, Flanders M (1991) Arm movements in three-dimen-
sional space: computation, theory, and observation. Exerc
Sport Sci Rev 19:389-418
Tyler AE, Hasan Z (1991) Trunk muscle activity during vertical
plane rapid arm movements while sitting. Soc Neurosci Abstr
17:1385
Tyler AE, Hasan Z (1993) Trunk muscle EMG during arm
reaching for different target directions and target distances.
Soc Neurosci 19:151
Tyler AE (1994) The action of trunk muscles in arm reaching
tasks. Dissertation, University of Arizona
Woollacott MH, Bonnet M, Yabe K (1984) Preparatory process for
anticipatory postural adjustments: modulation of leg muscles
reflex pathways during preparation for arm movements in
standing man. Exp Brain Res 55:263-271
Zajac FE, Gordon ME (1989) Determining muscle's force and ac-
tion in multi-articular movement. Exerc Sport Sci Rev 17:
187-230
Zatsiorsky V, Seluyanov V (1983) The mass and inertia character-
istics of the main segments of the human body. In: Matsui H ,
Kobayashi K (eds) Biomechanics VIII-B. Human Kinetics,
Champaign, Ill, pp 1152-1159