[Adam Matic, 2013.1.21.00.20 GMT+1]
This paper seems to be directly supporting the pct model of motor control. They don’t cite any PCT works or papers, and don’t seem to be familiar with control theory.
Nabil Ilmane, Samir Sangani, Anatol G. Feldman (2013).
Corticospinal control strategies underlying voluntary and involuntary wrist movements. Behavioural Brain Research 236, 360-358
Attached is the whole paper, I’ll just copy parts of the conclusion.
N. Ilmane et all: "Our analysis shows that descending systems are actively
involved in both voluntary and involuntary changes in the wrist
position but in fundamentally different ways."
AM: Motor paths decending to the spine - in PCT, these would be the second(?) level error pathways that set references for spinal reflex loops.
NI: "Descending systems reset the spatial thresholds of reﬂexes when voluntary changes in position are made, but maintain these thresholds when positional changes are produced involuntarily, following external perturbations.
The differences in the control strategies are related to the necessity to reset spatial reﬂex thresholds to a new posture and thus convert the posture-stabilizing mechanisms from those resisting to those assisting self-initiated motion. In contrast, descending systems may rely on these mechanisms to generate involuntary responses to perturbations by maintaining the same spatial thresholds of reﬂexes. "
AM: This would sound so much better in PCT - lingo. They are saying that the second level system is maintaining the reference value, while the first level system is working independently, controlling its perceptual signal.
NI: “These results substantially constrain the choice between different theories of motor control.”
Interesting, isn’t it? I’m trying to figure out what their data represents, perhaps it could be mapped to a functional model.