Biol. Cybern.
71,481-488 (1994)
A model of duration in normal and perturbed reaching movement
Bruce Hoff
Hughes Research Laboratories, 3011 Malibu Canyon Rd. MS-RL69, Malibu, CA 90265-4799, USA
Received: 24 March 1993/Accepted in revised form: 25 April 1994
Abstract. In modeling human and primate motor
behavior, optimization has been used to mathematically
describe hand trajectories during reaching movement,
with the duration of the movement given as part of the
boundary conditions. As duration is an input to the
model rather than an output, a description is lacking of
how the duration depends upon the circumstances of the
movement. In the present work, we extend a minimum
jerk model of reach trajectory planning to include a pen-
alty for duration and show that it can be used to quantify
the trade-off between quickness and effort in reaching
movements. We then show that a given trade-off for
a nominal reaching movement can predict the duration
of related movements, specifically reaching movements
subject to perturbation of the target during their course.
The mathematical model is tested against several inde-
pendent bodies of experimental data.
1 Introduction
It is generally accepted that voluntary, goal-directed,
reaching movements involve central programming of
motor patterns with, in many cases, some form of feed-
back modulation. For example, where the equilibrium
point hypothesis (Feldman 1986) predicts that at the
beginning of a voluntary movement a joint's equilibrium
position shifts at once to the desired final position for
that joint with the limb following according to the mech-
anical properties of the limb and its musculature, Bizzi et
al. (1984) showed that instead of a simple step to a new
value the virtual equilibrium position follows a time
varying trajectory [this idea being dubbed the equilib-
rium trajectory hypothesis by Flash (1987)]. In exploring
the nature of such motor programs, Hogan (1984)
modeled elbow rotations in pointing movements of mon-
keys toward a visually located target. The movements
were in the horizontal plane, about 60 ~in magnitude, and
of intermediate speed (about 700 ms in duration). He
proposed the minimum jerk hypothesis to describe the
kinematics of such movements. By applying the calculus
of variations, using the optimization criterion that the
mean squared jerk (third derivative of position) be mini-
Biological
Cybe
9 Springer-Verlag 1994
mized during the movement, he derived a position func-
tion of time given by a fifth-order polynomial, uniquely
specified by the initial and final values of position, velo-
city, and acceleration. If the target has zero velocity and
acceleration at the start and end of the movement, the
velocity profile is symmetric and bell-shaped, much like
the low-accuracy pointing movements performed by the
subjects studied.
Flash and Hogan (1985) examined subjects perform-
ing unconstrained arm movements in the horizontal
plane, holding a light-weight manipulandum. The room
was darkened, removing visual feedback of arm location.
Targets were indicated by light-emitting diodes at distan-
ces of 20-40 cm. Among other experiments, they had
subjects move between points in the plane without ob-
stacles. It was found that the hand's path was approxi-
mately a straight line (as predicted by the minimum jerk
criterion), regardless of the start and end points of the
movement. Also, the trajectory of the hand was predicted
well by the minimum jerk hypothesis, yielding character-
istic, symmetric, bell-shaped speed profiles. Thus, the
principle that explains elbow rotation also explains
whole arm movements.
Hoff and Arbib (1992, 1993) used the minimum jerk
model to reproduce reaching trajectories from three
bodies of experimental data. In each of the experiments,
reaching movements were not only made in a point-to-
point fashion in response to a single target step, but also
in response to a perturbed, or double-step, target. The
behavior under the perturbation condition was modeled
in the following way: It was assumed that when the target
of reach is perturbed, there is some delay while the visual
target location signal reaches the neural motor circuitry
which generates the movement toward the target. When
the new target location reaches this circuitry, a new
optimal movement is initiated from the current hand
position toward the secondary target. This view of the
perturbation response is discussed in detail in Hoff and
Arbib (1992). In the experimental data, the duration of
the two-step movement varies greatly, seemingly depen-
dent on factors such as the distance and direction of
perturbation. P61isson et al. (1986) used a perturbation
paradigm in which at movement onset the target was
occasionally and unexpectedly perturbed further away
482
from the subject. A small change was seen in movement
time. In contrast, in the target reversal experiment car-
ried out with monkeys by Georgopoulos et al. (1981), the
movement time was more than doubled after target per-
turbation. What is needed is a single model of movement
time determination which predicts a variety of such data.
In the two-step model, as in the original minimum jerk
model, the duration of the movement is an input, set to
that which is observed experimentally. The question re-
mains as to what determines the movement duration in
unperturbed and perturbed reaching. In the following, we
take a step toward answering that question by extending
the minimum-jerk cost function to include a penalty for
duration, such that duration may emerge from the opti-
mization process. We base the cost function on the dura-
tion of a nominal movement and show how the duration
of perturbed movements emerges from subsequent op-
timizations.
2 Modeling duration: the minimum jerk/minimum time
model
We begin by defining a dynamic system for the move-
ment of the hand in space, along with a cost measure to
be optimized. We then perform the optimization and
compare the simulation results to empirical data. We first
define a state vector for each dimension of a two dimen-
sional movement: xi(t), i = 1, 2, are 3 x 1 vectors of posi-
tion, velocity, and acceleration. Taking the driving input,
ui(t) to be the jerk, each dimension of the movement is
described by
X1 = Axl + BUl
X2 = Ax2 + Buz
where
A= 0 , B=
0 the movement times of other distances. We do so by
xi(O) = x ,.~
, x,(t:) = x{, i = 1, 2
The cost function consists of terms penalizing duration
and jerk:
t=tf
I = tf + R S (u~ W u 2)dt
t=0
or, equivalently,
t=ty
I= ~ (Ru~ + Ru~ + 1)dt
t=O
where R is the (positive and constant) relative weighting
between the two factors in the cost and is to be deter-
mined later. Equation (2) gives a formal description of the
determination of movement duration which is intuitively
acceptable. Consider the following three alternative
models for duration determination. First, we might sug-
gest that time alone is minimized. This leads to saturated
control values, or 'bang-bang' control, i.e. the muscles in
the arm are activated to their maximum tension in order
to produce the movement. This is clearly not the case,
since we experience much more smooth, relaxed move-
ments in our day-to-day reaching. Second, we might
suggest that smoothness, effort, or energy is minimized,
without regard to duration. For the system described
above, this would lead to the degenerate case of a move-
ment that takes infinitely long to occur. Thirdly, we
might suggest that duration is purely a result of mus-
culoskeletal mechanical properties. If this were the case,
one would have no control over the duration of one's
reaching movements, which clearly not the case. Instead,
the minimum jerk/time model implies that both efficiency
and expediency are important in movement, and that the
emergent duration is based on the trade-off between the
two. This is palatable to our intuition, and the task of this
paper is to test the model quantitatively, by comparing it
to several bodies of experimental data.
The trajectory is to go from the given initial state to
the given final state, while minimizing (2). The solution to
this optimization problem is given in Appendix A and
yields the complex relationship between t:, the boundary
o o f f
conditions Xl, x2, xl, x2, and R given in (A14). In Appen-
dix B, the solution is given for the particular case where
there are static boundary conditions, i.e.
t: = (60D) 1/3 R 1/6 (3)
This says that the duration of a movement (t:) is propor-
tional to the cubed root of the distance moved (D), and
the constant of proportionality is the 'arbitrary' weight-
ing of smoothness versus time, R. This dependence on
R is consistent with our intuition: If smoothness is penal-
(la) ized more than duration, a long, slow movement will
result, with longer duration, i.e. increasing R increases t:.
(lb)
This presents both a problem and a solution for
modeling duration as an emergent property of an optim-
ization model. The problem is that duration is still
essentially a chosen parameter, since the modeler chooses
R. However, when movement distance varies in an ex-
periment, we can extrapolate from one movement time to
solving (3) for R
R = t~/(60O) z
Then for a chosen movement distance and time, we find
(2) R, which is used along with other movement distances in
(3) to find their associated durations. Further, the dura-
tion of an unperturbed movement can be used to predict
the duration of a perturbed movement. As in Hoff and
Arbib (1992, 1993), perturbed movement is modeled as an
optimal trajectory interrupted and replaced by a new
trajectory connecting the current hand state to the new
target. There is some delay while the visual target loca-
tion signal reaches the neural motor circuitry which
implements the movement, after which a new optimal
movement is initiated toward the secondary target. The
duration of this movement is predictable by solving the
above optimal control problem, but with novel boundary
conditions. The new terminal condition is given by the
perturbed target location. The new initial condition is the
 483

:::I /\
state of the system, xi(t), i = 1,2, at the time the
new trajectory begins. To find the duration of the pertur-
bed movement, we use t I and D from the non-perturbed
movement to find R. Then we apply R to (A14) and 4 41
solve the polynomial equation to find the duration of I ; I I 0
-2118 -4 260 524 7118 -21111 2 270 5311 E06
the second section of the perturbed movement. Note
that xi(0) in (A14) is the current, nonstatic state at TIME (MSEC) TIME (MSEC)

the time the perturbed movement begins. This technique

is used in the next section to model three different bodies
of target perturbation experiments and predict some new
results.

< I I I I ~ ' - J I 1 J J ~" r I [

3 Modeling perturbation data -2EE -4 260 524 788 -2ee 2 1TO 538 806

a TIME (MSEC) TIME (MSEC)

The minimum jerk/time model was applied to reaching
data in an attempt to predict the varying movement OOUELE STEP
SINGLE STEP
times which result from different target location per-
turbations. The inputs to the model are the initial and 900
perturbed target locations relative to the initial hand 9 Measured duration
location, the non-perturbed movement duration, and the
g
9---.-.o-.-- Model prediction
time of reaction to perturbation (which is the time of 0
700

target perturbation plus sensorimotor delay, or 'reaction

time').
P61isson et al. (1986) had subjects reach 30, 40, or 50 500 9

cm, while sometimes unexpectedly perturbing the target

location 10% further at movement onset. They found
movement times similar to unperturbed movement times
when reaching to the slightly more distant target loca-
tions, and perturbed movement trajectories which were
similar in shape to unperturbed ones, as shown in Fig. la.
Figure lb shows six measured movement times (averages
with associated standard deviations). There are three for
the unperturbed movements of amplitude 30, 40, and
50 cm and three for the perturbed movements of ampli-
tude 33, 44, and 54 cm. In the duration model, the unper-
turbed movement times were taken to be the average for
each distance, and since the perturbation occurred at
movement onset, the time of trajectory perturbation was
one reaction time (RT), which was taken to be 200 ms,
a typical reaction time value (Stark 1968). The resulting
sixth-order polynomials (A14) were solved using Math-
ematica (trademark of Wolfram Research, Inc.), and the
results of estimating the perturbed durations are seen in
Fig. lb. Clearly, the model predicts the small movement
time increase seen in the perturbed movements. The
duration prediction model takes into account not only
the distance from the target at perturbation, but also the
direction of movement, a property akin to momentum,
but at the kinematics level. Since the direction of move-
ment is similar to that which we would expect for an
unperturbed movement to the nearby target, a duration
similar to the original is predicted. The significance of
this is seen in the next modeling experiment.
The duration prediction model was applied to the
target reversal experiment of Georgopoulos et al. (1981).
An unperturbed reaching movement in the horizontal
plane to a target 8 cm distant took 260 ms to complete. In
some trials, after some interstimulus interval (ISI), the
"target was switched to a point 8 cm from the starting
point, in a direction opposite to the direction of the initial
300 ! i
25 35 45 55
b M o v e m e n t amplitude (cm)
Fig. I. a Target perturbation experiment of PElisson et al. (1986). Hand
velocity and acceleration profiles for unperturbed reach to 40 cm target
(left) and perturbed reach, from 40 to 44 cm (right). (Reprinted from
PElisson et al. 1986, with permission from Springer-Verlag Publishers,
New York.) b Movement duration in PElisson et al. (1986). Experi-
mental data and model output shown. Note the small increase in
duration associated with perturbation in the same direction as the
initial movement (i.e., movements of amplitude 33, 44, 54 cm) compared
with unperturbed movements (i.e., movements of amplitude 30, 40,
50 cm), when the perturbation occurs early in the movement. Error bars
indicate the range of experimentally recorded values
target (Fig. 2a). In this case there was a significant
increase (about 100%) in movement time, due to the
movement reversal. The model predicts closely the dura-
tion for ISI = 200 ms, which is read from the velocity
profile in their Fig. 2 as 550 ms (with a resolution of
10ms). The model predicts 524 ms (Fig. 2b). It also
predicts durations for a variety of ISis, for which dura-
tion information is unavailable in the paper. Note that
the model predicts a shorter overall movement time
when the target is switched sooner. This set of predictions
gives a method for testing the validity of the model
further.
Lastly, the model was applied to the target location
perturbation experiment of Paulignan et al. (1991). Sub-
jects reached about 24 cm to grasp a small vertical dowel.
During some trials the target location was switched, at
movement onset, to one of two dowels slightly to the left
or right of the initially indicated dowel. The secondary
484

a 9 . . . . . . ,.= . . . . . .

9 .?

~,o A :b -b,
. \ -
Y
\ ,, ,,,
FIRST L l Gt4T
STRYS ON r ~10 I00 1~0 200 2~0 300 400 ~OHTROt. AXIS
T
W

a
b X 50 m m
800 "-

g 800

g 600 -
-- Measured duration
g'|
"0 400 -

" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

200 -
oJ Modeled duration (ms) "~ s0o
0 ----" Measuredduration [ma)
0 9 ) ! I
0 100 2OO 300 40o
ISI (ms)
PL C20 PR
Fig. 2. a Macaque hand trajectories in target reversal task of Georg-
opoulos et al. (1981). As duration of presentation of primary target
b Target
increases, so does total movement time. (Reprinted from Georgopoulos
et al. 1981, with permission from The American Physiological Society, Fig. 3. a Target location perturbation experiment of Paulignan et al.
Bethesda.) b Movement time data and model prediction for the target (1991). Object to be grasped is unexpectedly moved left to right. Paths
reversal experiment of Georgopoulos et al. (1981). Dotted line indicates of thumb (T), index finger (I), and wrist (W) are shown for each of the
the duration of non-perturbed reaching movement. Measured duration three conditions, (Reprinted from Paulignan et al. 1991, with per-
is available for one case; the model predicts the durations for the other mission from Springer-Verlag Publishers, New York.) b Movement
perturbation cases in the experiment. ISI, interstimulus interval, the time data and model prediction for the target perturbation experiment
time before the target is switched. Note that the model predicts shorter of Paulignan et al. (1991). C20, Unperturbed movement. Modeled
overall movement time when the target is switched sooner duration is identical to measured duration by definition. PL/PR, pertur-
bed left and perturbed right

which insure the correct approach direction at the tra-

dowel positions were symmetrically displaced with jectory's end (Hoff and Arbib 1993).
respect to the initial one; however, the wrist positions
in grasping each dowel were not symmetrically offset
from these dowel positions, as can be seen in Fig. 3a. 4 Discussion
Relative to the initial wrist position, while grasping
the center dowel the wrist was at X-Y position (2 cm, In general, the duration data examined above show an
24 cm). The wrist positions for the left and right targets increase in movement time for perturbed movements.
were estimated to be ( - 6 cm, 27 cm) and (8 cm, 21 cm), This is faithfully reproduced by our model. The exception
respectively. Since the perturbation occurred at move- is the perturbation from 30 to 33 cm in the experiment of
ment onset, the time of trajectory perturbation is equal Prlisson et al. (1986), in which the average movement
to one RT, which we found gave the best fit to the data time is shorter for the perturbed movement (Fig. lb). This
when taken to be 280 ms. The results of using these is not predicted by the minimum jerk/time model, which
parameters is shown in Fig. 3b. We also found that using never predicts briefer movements for more distant
the static final state did not produce as good a fit to targets. If this discrepancy holds for a much larger experi-
the data as when a nonzero final acceleration (but zero mental data set, a rethinking of the model will be neces-
final velocity) was used to control the target approach sary. We note that the predicted value is still within one
during reaction to grasp. [This orientation constraint standard deviation of the average perturbed duration.
is discussed in Hoff and Arbib (1993).] To produce An important question is how the optimal control
the results in Fig. 3b, we used the modest terminal accel- solution with the modified cost function developed in this
eration values paper compares to the optimal control solution for the
classic minimum-jerk formulation. Intuitively, once
a duration is chosen, (2) becomes simply a minimum-jerk
x l , 3 ( t f ) = O, x2,3(tf) = -- 4m/s 2 cost functional, with a constant (the duration) added on.
 485

Thus, one would expect that the optimum would be the xl and x2. Similarly, the costate is the concatenation of
same as that for the classic minimum-jerk. We formally Pl and Pa. Thus, the Hamiltonian is
show this equivalence in Appendix C. The added feature
H=L + pr21 + pT22
of the optimization of this model is that it gives not only
the optimal trajectory, but also the movement duration. or
Lastly, note that even though the dimensions of hand
movement are dynamically decoupled, as defined by (1), H = (Ru 2 + Ru~ + 1) + pW(Axl + Bul)
the minimization criterion yields a movement time t I
which depends on the boundary conditions for each + p r ( A x 2 + Bu2) (A4)
dimension, and which in turn affects the trajectory of Since the formulation is a linear system with a quadratic
each dimension. For example, if the target location com- cost functional, we can minimize the Hamiltonian by
ponent is changed in dimension 1 only, then t I will be differentiating with respect to the control, and setting the
affected, as will be the trajectory in dimension 2. This has derivative equal to zero.
implications for other multidimensional movements,
such as oculomotor saccades, in which one dimension of OH
eye rotation slows for the other when an oblique move- - - = 0 = 2Ru~ + prB, u* = - prB/(2R) (a5a)
C3Ul
ment is being made.
~H
= 0 = 2Ru* + pTB, u~ = pTB/(ZR) (A5b)
Acknowledgements. This work was done in the Universityof Southern
California's Center for Neural Engineering under a grant from the t?u2
Human Frontier ScienceProgram, and under the advice and guidance Now (A1), (A3), and (A5) define a system of differential
of Professor Michael Arbib, to whom I owe thanks.
equations which may be solved with suitable boundary
conditions to yield the optimal trajectory. While the
boundary conditions x ~ x{, i = 1, 2, are given, since tz is
Appendix A being optimized it is not given a priori. Instead, we have
one additional constraint, that the Hamiltonian at the
Given the dynamic system defined by final time is zero (Bryson and Ho 1975)

21 = Ax1 -+- Bul (Ala) H(tf) = 0

22 = Ax2 + Bu2 (alb) Since the system dynamics and cost function integrand
are autonomous (i.e. not explicit functions of time), we
where have that the time derivative of the Hamiltonian is zero

A=
[ilil 0
0
,

given the boundary conditions on the movement

also
/:/=0
Therefore, the Hamiltonian at any time in the trajectory
is zero
H(t) = 0 (A6)
xi(O) = X ~ xi(tf) = X { , i = 1,2
This is advantageous, as it allows us to use the constraint
and given the cost function at the most convenient time t. Setting (A4) equal to zero
t=tf 0 = (Ru 2 + R u 2 + 1) + p r ( A X l + Bul) + pT(Ax2 + Bu2)
I = ~ (Ru 2 + Ru~ + 1)dt (A2)
t=O and rearranging terms, we have
we solve for the optimum trajectory by applying the 0 = Ru .2 + PlT BUl* + Ru *z + P2T Bu2* + 1
minimum principle (Bryson and Ho 1975). First we de-
fine the costate dynamics equations + pTAxl + pTAx2

-- t51 = A r pl (A3a) We can simplify the expression by using the definition

of B
- - 152 = AT p2 (A3b)
We then define the Hamiltonian, which is to be mini-
mized by the choice of inputs ul (t), u2 (t). In the minimum B = , p~B = p,, 3, u ? = - p,, 3 / ( 2 R )
principle, the Hamiltonian is defined as
H = L + pT2
from (A5). Performing the substitution,
where L is the integrand of the cost functional, x is the 0 = p~, 3/(4R) - p~, 3/(2R) + p~, 3/(4R) - p,~ 3/(2R)
state, and p is the costate. In our case, the state is the 6 x 1
vector produced by concatenating the two 3 x 1 vectors + 1 + pTAxa + p T A x 2
486

and simplifying,
0 = - - p L23 / ( 4 R ) - - p 2 ,23 / ( 4 R ) +
Also, we may use the definition of A,
1 + p~Axl + p ~ A x 2 (A7) cb21(t, O) =
l~[: 0
0

0
A= 0 , Axi = 3 , pT Axi = Pi, lXi,2 + Pi,2xi,3 (Allb)
~22(t, 0 ) = --89 2 --tl
0
and enter it into (A7) to obtain Note that this result gives the solution trajectory for
0 = - pZ,3/(4R ) - P 2 ,2
3/(4R) + 1
(A10) if the initial conditions, x~(0) and pi(0), are known.
Two problems remain: We do not know pi(O), and we
+ Pl,lX1,2 Jr- P1,2X1,3 + P2,1X2,2 + P2,2X2,3 (A8) have still to find the duration tl, using (A8). Given the
initial and final values for the state vector, x~(0) and
which, we remind ourselves, applies at every time t.
x~(tl), we can find pi(0) as a function of ts: We assign
We return now to the problem of finding the solu-
t = t I in (A10),
tions for x~(t), p~(t), i = 1, 2. Entering u*(t) into (A1) we
have ?,(04
2, = Axi + B( - Brp,/(2R)) pi(tf)J Lq~zl(tl, 0) cl)22(tI, 0)J Lpi(0)J
Xi = Axi -- BBTpi/(2R) the first row of which is

for i = 1, 2. Combining (A9) with (A3) yields xi(tl) = @ l l ( t f , O)xi(O) + ~12(tf, O)pi(O)
Solving for p~(0),
[ ; : ] - - [ A - BBT J lPi]Xi
pi(O) = ~[21(tf, O)xi(tj-) - cb[1 (re, 0)q~ll(tl, O)xi(O) (h12)
Entering A and B, we obtain the following differential where
equation: -240 - 120t 20t 2]
-0 1 0 0 0 0 ~biz~(t, 0 ) - - - t56R 120t - 56t 2 8t3 / (A13)
0 0 1 0 0 0 Lzot 2 _ st 3 t4 J
This formula for pi(0) provides the information needed
for finding the solution trajectory. It also allows us to
find the duration. Given boundary conditions xi(0) and
000 -1 0 0 xi(tfl, we find p~(0) using (A12) and then enter it, along
000 0 -1 0 with x~(0), into (A8), the equation for the free end time
condition. (Note we are arbitrarily and conveniently
The next step is to find the state transition matrix, choosing to solve this equation at time t = 0.) This yields
defined by the following sixth-order polynomial in t I
xi(t) cb(t,~,[xi(O)~ 0=
p,(t)J = - 3600R(Ax~,l + Ax 2,1
For convenience, we define four 'sub-matrices' of the + tr 2800R(Axl. 1AXl, 2 + Ax2, lAx2.2 + 2Axl, lx], 2
state transition matrix,
+ 21x2, ~x~ + t}R( - 5761x 2, 2 - 360Axl, ~Axl, 3
[ xi(t)l = [~ll(t'O)
pi(t)J ~2,(t,O)
~12(t'O'][xi(O)l
~'~2(t,O) Lp,(0)J
(A10)
- 576Ax22,2 - 360Ax2.1Ax2, 3 - 2160 Axl. 2 x~ 2
- 2160x]21 - 2160Ax2,zx~ 2 - 2160x~22)
The solution consists of matrices of monomials of order
up to 5, + t}R(144Ax1,2Axl,3 + 144Ax2,2Ax2,3
+ 240Axx,3x],2 + 48AXl,2X~ + 240Ax2,3X~
~b11(t, O) = 1 + 48Ax2,zX~ + t } R ( - 9 1 x 2 3 - 91x~,3
0 - 12AxL3x~ -- 12x]23 -- 12Ax2,3x~
_ 5t 4 20t 2] - 12x~23) + t} (114)
-- t St 3 -- 20t 2 60t / (Alla) where Ax~ = x { - x ~ This polynomial may then be
9 ~z(t, 0) = 240---R L20t2 solved numerically, given values for the boundary
- 60t 120 J conditions x], x2, x{, x{, and a value for R.
 487

Appendix B generality, we define the static boundary conditions, as in

Appendix B,
We solve (A14) in the special case when there are the
static boundary conditions,
X~ ~ , X

X~ = , X =
Entering these into (A19)
for i = 1, 2. Then taking (A8) at t = 0, the last four terms
vanish, leaving
0 = -- p2.3/(4R) -- p2, 3/(4R) + 1
l-o
4R : P l , 32 + P 2 ,23 (A15) Now entering the boundary conditions and this expres-
sion for p(0) into (A20)
Entering xi(0) = 0 in (A12),
pi(O) = crp;21(tf, O)xi(tf)
Introducing the static x~(ty), using (A13), and calculating
only the third component of p~(0),
Entering in the matrix definitions from (A11) and (A13)
P~,3 (0) = - 6 R t f 5 2 0 t } x f

= -- 1 2 0 R t f 3 x f
--t
5t 3 -- 2 0 t 2 60t l
Combining this with (A15) yields
x(t) = ~ [_2~ _ 60t 120_]/
4 R = 1 2 0 2 R e t f 6xf~ + 1202 R 2 tf 6 X2f2

t~ = 60ZR(XYl~ + x{ ~)

We define D to be the distance traveled from t = 0 to

t=ty:
(A16)
x--~ll20t
t~ ~2ot~ -8t~
I
120 l
- 56t} 8t} |
t) [
D = (X1fz AV x2f~) 112
To obtain the position trajectory, we take just the first
We can then write (A16) as component of x(t),

tf = ( 6 0 D ) a / 3 R 1"/6 (AI7) --t 4

pos(t) = x(t)l = 2 ~ - ~ [ t -- 5t 3 20t 23

Appendix C •
I L20t} -St}
56t}
2olli]
t) J
We wish to show that the cost function defined in
this work yields the same trajectory as that given by
the classic minimum-jerk formulation. Following Hogan I240 1
(1984), we take the one-dimensional (I-D) case and --t
- 240R[t
4~ -- 5t 3 20el - 6__
R |12%| xf
assume static boundary conditions. For the 1-D system,
we can drop the 'i' subscripts, rewriting (A10) and t~ [2ot~ J
(A12) as,
= x f t / t } ( 6 t 4 -- 15t3tf + 10tzt})

[x(t)~-~-~ ~ l l ( t ' O )
p(t)J [_~z,(t, 0)
~ 1 2 ( t ' 0)~ ~ X(0) ]
q~z2(t,O)J [_p(0)J
(A18) = a{6(t/d) 5 - 1 5 ( t / d ) 4 + lO(t/d) 3}

where d = t I and a = x{. The last expression is

p(O) = ~ ; ) ( t r O)x(tr - q~{l(ty, 0)~ll(ty, 0)x(0)
The top row of (A18) can be written
x(t) = ~bll(t , 0)X(0) + ~ t 2 ( t , 0)p(0)
With the appropriate boundary conditions, (A20) and
(A19) define the system's trajectory. Without loss of
(A19) equivalent to that of (11) in Hogan (1984). Thus,
the resulting trajectories are the same for the problem
when optimized according to either the minimum-jerk
(A20) or the minimum-jerk/time criterion. The added feature
of the optimization of this paper is that it gives not
only the trajectory, but also insight into the movement
duration.
488
References
Bizzi E, Accornero N, Chapple W, Hogan N (1984) Posture control
and trajectory formation during arm movement. J Neurosci 4:
2738 2744
Feldman AG (1986) Once more on the equilibrium-point hypothesis
(2 model) for motor control. J Motor Behav 18:17-54
Flash T (1987) The control of hand equilibrium trajectories in multi-
joint arm movements. Biol Cybern 57:257-274
Flash T, Hogan N (1985) The coordination of arm movements: an
experimentally confirmed mathematical model. J Neurosci 5:
1688-1703
Georgopoulos AP, Kalaska JF, Massey JT (1981) Spatial trajectories
and reaction times of aimed movements: effects of practice,
uncertainty, and change in target location. J Neurophysiol 56:
725-743
Hoff B, Arbib MA (1992) A model of the effects of speed, accuracy and
perturbation on visually guided reaching. In: Caminiti R (ed) Con-
trol of arm movement in space: neurophysiological and com-
putational approaches. (Experimental Brain Research Suppl 22)
Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp 285-306
Holt B, Arbib MA (1993) Models of trajectory formation and temporal
interaction of reach and grasp. J Motor Behav 25:175-192
Hogan N (1984)An organizing principle for a class of voluntary move-
ments. J Neurosci 4:2745-2754
Paulignan Y, MacKenzie C, Marteniuk R, Jeannerod M (1991)
Selective perturbation of visual input during prehension move-
ments. 1. The effects of changing object position. Exp Brain Res
83:502-512
P61isson D, Prablanc C, Goodale MA, Jeannerod M (1986) Visual
control of reaching movements without vision of the limb. II.
Evidence of fast, unconscious processes correcting the trajectory of
the hand to the final position of a double-step stimulus. Exp Brain
Res 62:303-311
Stark L (1968) Neurological control systems, studies in bioengineering.
Plenum Press, New York