Useful and Useless Misnomers in Motor Control.

Abstract

This article addresses the issue of using terms and concepts in motor control that are ill-defined, undefined, and/or imported from nonbiological fields. In many of such cases, the discourse turns nonscientific and unproductive. Some of such terms are potentially useful but need to be properly and exactly defined. Other terms seem to be misleading and nonfixable. There is also an intermediate group with terms that may or may not be useful if defined properly. The paper presents three examples per group: "reflex," "synergy," and "posture" versus "motor program," "efference copy," and "internal model" versus "muscle tone," "stiffness and impedance," and "redundancy." These terms are analyzed assuming that motor control is a branch of natural science, which must be analyzed using laws of nature, not a subfield of the control theory. In the discussion, we also accept the framework of the theory of movement control with spatial referent coordinates as the only example built on laws of nature with clearly formulated physical and physiological nature of the control parameters.