Useful and Useless Misnomers in Motor Control

Area of Science:

• Motor control research
• Neuroscience
• Biomechanics

Background:

• Many terms in motor control lack precise definitions or are borrowed from nonbiological fields.
• This ambiguity can lead to unproductive, nonscientific discussions.
• Existing terminology requires critical evaluation for scientific rigor.

Purpose of the Study:

• To address the problem of ill-defined and imported terminology in motor control.
• To differentiate between terms needing precise definition and those that are fundamentally flawed.
• To promote a scientific approach to motor control based on natural laws.

Main Methods:

• Analysis of motor control terminology, categorizing terms based on their scientific utility.
• Examination of example terms like "reflex," "synergy," "posture," "motor program," "efference copy," "internal model," "muscle tone," "stiffness and impedance," and "redundancy."
• Evaluating terms within the framework of natural science and established theories of movement control.

Main Results:

• Identified three categories of terms: those needing precise definition, those potentially useful if defined, and those misleading.
• Demonstrated how specific terms fit into these categories, highlighting their current limitations.
• Proposed that motor control should be analyzed using natural laws, not solely control theory.

Conclusions:

• Clear, scientifically grounded definitions are crucial for advancing motor control research.
• Adopting a natural science framework, such as the theory of movement control with spatial referent coordinates, enhances physiological and physical understanding.
• Refining or discarding ambiguous terms is essential for productive scientific discourse in motor control.