Suriya Prakash Muthukrishnan
Adham Atyabi
94% of researchers rate our articles as excellent or good
Learn more about the work of our research integrity team to safeguard the quality of each article we publish.
Find out more
- 1Department of Physiology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India
- 2Department of Computer Science, University of Colorado, Colorado Springs, CO, United States
Editorial on the Research Topic
Neural mechanisms of motor planning in assisted voluntary movement
Advancements in assistive robotics for motor rehabilitation have made significant progress in recent years, with Brain-Machine Interfaces (BMIs) playing a key role in decoding motor intentions and enhancing voluntary movement control. EEG-based systems are the most widely studied non-invasive BMIs, while fNIRS-based approaches are gaining interest (Lebedev and Nicolelis, 2017). Non-invasive BMIs, primarily explored in clinical studies, aim to promote neurorehabilitation by facilitating brain plasticity and motor recovery (Lebedev and Nicolelis, 2017). Research suggests BMIs could evolve beyond assistive technology into a therapeutic tool for neurological recovery (Donati et al., 2016). Effective BMIs integrate both top-down movement intention and bottom-up sensory feedback (Scott, 2016). This editorial highlights key contributions from five articles (four research articles, one review) featured in this Research Topic, addressing advances and challenges in human motor neuroscience and human-machine teaming, focusing on neurorehabilitation and the development of brain-machine interfaces for assistive robotics.
Improving humanoid robot hand dexterity enhances their ability to perform precise tasks, such as surgical assistance and aiding individuals with disabilities. The brain simplifies voluntary movement by organizing muscle and joint activations into coordinated patterns called “synergies,” reducing the complexity of controlling the hand's numerous degrees of freedom. Studying these synergies provides insights into brain-hand communication, motor disorders, and robotic control. Researchers have explored kinematic synergies (Grinyagin et al., 2005; Freitas et al., 2006), to better understand the neural activity that mediates musculoskeletal mechanics and behavioral goals. Olikkal et al. extracted kinematic synergies from 33 American Sign Language hand gestures using an RGB camera, MediaPipe, Gaussian functions, and Principal component analysis (PCA), achieving 95.7% accuracy. This synergy-based approach simplifies motion retargeting, offering potential for assistive robotics.
Accident analyses highlight run-off road incidents as a major cause of fatalities, yet drivers' brain responses during such events remain poorly understood. Brain recordings capture overlapping processes such as motor control, visual processing, and error monitoring, making their individual contributions unclear. While studies have separated visual and motor components (Walter et al., 2001; Horikawa et al., 2005; Garcia et al., 2017), disentangling these processes remains challenging. Pulferer et al. addressed this by employing passive and active steering in error-free and error-prone conditions, demonstrating that distinct sub-processes can be separated using time-locked analyses of EEG data. Findings revealed increased fronto-central activity and information flow during execution, linked to performance monitoring in the caudal anterior cingulate cortex.
Reaching movements, fundamental to daily life and rehabilitation, follow Fitts' Law, which predicts longer movement times for more difficult tasks (Fitts, 1954). While Fitts' Law has enhanced human-machine interactions in neurorehabilitative devices (Zimmerli et al., 2012), the association between cortical activation and task demands remains unclear, hindering optimal therapeutic parameter selection (e.g., dosage, repetition, difficulty). Ji et al. examined whether motor cortex activity correlates with index-of-difficulty in speed-accuracy reaching tasks. Healthy subjects performed 2D reaching movements with ID levels using a rehabilitation robot while fNIRS recorded cortical responses. While kinematic data aligned with Fitts' Law, motor cortex activity showed no direct correlation with task difficulty, implying the influence of additional factors such as muscle activation.
Physical exercise enhances brain plasticity, crucial for functional reorganization of the lesioned cortex and motor recovery in patients with motor impairment (Kokotilo et al., 2009; James and McGlinchey, 2022). However, how different movement patterns influence somatosensory cortex reorganization across various stages of neurorehabilitation remains poorly understood. Understanding their specific effects on sensory-motor cortex activity can refine training dosages (type, time, and intensity) and deepen our understanding of exercise mechanisms. To explore the impact of exercise training modes on sensory and motor-related cortex excitability, Li et al. used fNIRS to study cortical activity in healthy participants during passive, active, and resistance tasks with an upper-limb robotic device. Active movement showed higher contralateral M1 activation, while resistance exercise activated both hemispheres more extensively. While these findings provide valuable insights, further research is needed to refine exercise therapy strategies using assistive technologies.
Human movement is defined by kinematic and kinetic attributes. Kinematics, or “high-level control,” governs motion parameters like location, direction, velocity, and acceleration, shaping the desired trajectory. Kinetics, or “low-level control,” related to the control of individual muscles and forces. Multiple trajectories can achieve the same goal-oriented movement, and research has examined how the sensorimotor cortex represents these features (Branco et al., 2019; Zhou et al., 2022). However, how the brain optimally executes voluntary movements remains a major challenge. Ghosh et al. reviewed the neural correlates predictive of upper limb motor intention and kinematics. This review also highlights the potential of closed-loop EEG-based BMIs to promote long-term rehabilitation, neural plasticity, and motor recovery.
In conclusion, the articles in this Research Topic provide insights into the neural mechanisms of motor planning in assisted voluntary movement and advancements in BMI-controlled assistive robotics. However, challenges remain, including the need for larger studies, standardized methodologies, and rigorous bias assessments. Future BMI systems for motor rehabilitation should focus on integrating multiple physiological signals, ensuring long-term stability, improving user engagement, and enhancing sensory feedback. Continued research and clinical trials are essential to developing effective BMI systems and improving the quality of life for patients with motor impairments.
Author contributions
SM: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Methodology, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. AA: Validation, Writing – review & editing, Formal analysis.
Funding
The author(s) declare financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article. SM is currently funded by a grant from the Defense Research and Development Organization (Grant # RP04191G) and Indian Council of Medical Research (Grant # IIRP-2023-0546).
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
Branco, M. P., de Boer, L. M., Ramsey, N. F., and Vansteensel, M. J. (2019). Encoding of kinetic and kinematic movement parameters in the sensorimotor cortex: a brain-computer interface perspective. Eur. J. Neurosci. 50, 2755–2772. doi: 10.1111/ejn.14342
Donati, A. R. C., Shokur, S., Morya, E., Campos, D. S. F., Moioli, R. C., Gitti, C. M., et al. (2016). Long-term training with a brain-machine interface-based gait protocol induces partial neurological recovery in paraplegic patients. Sci. Rep. 6:30383. doi: 10.1038/srep30383
Fitts, P. M. (1954). The information capacity of the human motor system in controlling the amplitude of movement. J. Exp. Psychol. 47, 381–391. doi: 10.1037/h0055392
Freitas, S. M. S. F., Duarte, M., and Latash, M. L. (2006). Two kinematic synergies in voluntary whole-body movements during standing. J. Neurophysiol. 95, 636–645. doi: 10.1152/jn.00482.2005
Garcia, J. O., Brooks, J., Kerick, S., Johnson, T., Mullen, T. R., and Vettel, J. M. (2017). Estimating direction in brain-behavior interactions: Proactive and reactive brain states in driving. NeuroImage 150, 239–249. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.02.057
Grinyagin, I. V., Biryukova, E. V., and Maier, M. A. (2005). Kinematic and dynamic synergies of human precision-grip movements. J. Neurophysiol. 94, 2284–2294. doi: 10.1152/jn.01310.2004
Horikawa, E., Okamura, N., Tashiro, M., Sakurada, Y., Maruyama, M., Arai, H., et al. (2005). The neural correlates of driving performance identified using positron emission tomography. Brain Cogn. 58, 166–171. doi: 10.1016/j.bandc.2004.10.002
James, J., and McGlinchey, M. P. (2022). How active are stroke patients in physiotherapy sessions and is this associated with stroke severity? Disabil. Rehabil. 44, 4408–4414. doi: 10.1080/09638288.2021.1907459
Kokotilo, K. J., Eng, J. J., and Boyd, L. A. (2009). Reorganization of brain function during force production after stroke: a systematic review of the literature. J. Neurol. Phys. Ther. JNPT 33, 45–54. doi: 10.1097/NPT.0b013e31819824f0
Lebedev, M. A., and Nicolelis, M. A. L. (2017). Brain-machine interfaces: from basic science to neuroprostheses and neurorehabilitation. Physiol. Rev. 97, 767–837. doi: 10.1152/physrev.00027.2016
Scott, S. H. (2016). A functional taxonomy of bottom-up sensory feedback processing for motor actions. Trends Neurosci. 39, 512–526. doi: 10.1016/j.tins.2016.06.001
Walter, H., Vetter, S. C., Grothe, J., Wunderlich, A. P., Hahn, S., and Spitzer, M. (2001). The neural correlates of driving. Neuroreport 12, 1763–1767. doi: 10.1097/00001756-200106130-00049
Zhou, G., Chen, Y., Wang, X., Wei, H., Huang, Q., and Li, L. (2022). The correlations between kinematic profiles and cerebral hemodynamics suggest changes of motor coordination in single and bilateral finger movement. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 16:957364. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2022.957364
Keywords: brain-machine interfaces, electroencephalography (EEG), error processing, functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS), kinematic synergies
Citation: Muthukrishnan SP and Atyabi A (2025) Editorial: Neural mechanisms of motor planning in assisted voluntary movement. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 19:1582214. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2025.1582214
Received: 24 February 2025; Accepted: 03 March 2025;
Published: 13 March 2025.
Edited and reviewed by: Julie Duque, Université Catholique de Louvain, Belgium
Copyright © 2025 Muthukrishnan and Atyabi. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Suriya Prakash Muthukrishnan, ZHIuc3VyaXlhcHJha2FzaEBhaWltcy5lZHU=