Several recent studies have used matrix factorization algorithms to assess the hypothesis that behaviors might be produced through the combination of a small number of muscle synergies. Although generally agreeing in their basic conclusions, these studies have used a range of different algorithms, making their interpretation and integration difficult. We therefore compared the performance of these different algorithms on both simulated and experimental data sets. We focused on the ability of these algorithms to identify the set of synergies underlying a data set. All data sets consisted of nonnegative values, reflecting the nonnegative data of muscle activation patterns. We found that the performance of principal component analysis (PCA) was generally lower than that of the other algorithms in identifying muscle synergies. Factor analysis (FA) with varimax rotation was better than PCA, and was generally at the same levels as independent component analysis (ICA) and nonnegative matrix factorization (NMF). ICA performed very well on data sets corrupted by constant variance Gaussian noise, but was impaired on data sets with signal-dependent noise and when synergy activation coefficients were correlated. Nonnegative matrix factorization (NMF) performed similarly to ICA and FA on data sets with signal-dependent noise and was generally robust across data sets. The best algorithms were ICA applied to the subspace defined by PCA (ICAPCA) and a version of probabilistic ICA with nonnegativity constraints (pICA). We also evaluated some commonly used criteria to identify the number of synergies underlying a data set, finding that only likelihood ratios based on factor analysis identified the correct number of synergies for data sets with signal-dependent noise in some cases. We then proposed an ad hoc procedure, finding that it was able to identify the correct number in a larger number of cases. Finally, we applied these methods to an experimentally obtained data set. The best performing algorithms (FA, ICA, NMF, ICAPCA, pICA) identified synergies very similar to one another. Based on these results, we discuss guidelines for using factorization algorithms to analyze muscle activation patterns. More generally, the ability of several algorithms to identify the correct muscle synergies and activation coefficients in simulated data, combined with their consistency when applied to physiological data sets, suggests that the muscle synergies found by a particular algorithm are not an artifact of that algorithm, but reflect basic aspects of the organization of muscle activation patterns underlying behaviors.

The experimental findings herein reported are aimed at gaining a perspective on the complex neural events that follow lesions of the motor cortical areas. Cortical damage, whether by trauma or stroke, interferes with the flow of descending signals to the modular interneuronal structures of the spinal cord. These spinal modules subserve normal motor behaviors by activating groups of muscles as individual units (muscle synergies). Damage to the motor cortical areas disrupts the orchestration of the modules, resulting in abnormal movements. To gain insights into this complex process, we recorded myoelectric signals from multiple upper-limb muscles in subjects with cortical lesions. We used a factorization algorithm to identify the muscle synergies. Our factorization analysis revealed, in a quantitative way, three distinct patterns of muscle coordination—including preservation, merging, and fractionation of muscle synergies—that reflect the multiple neural responses that occur after cortical damage. These patterns varied as a function of both the severity of functional impairment and the temporal distance from stroke onset. We think these muscle-synergy patterns can be used as physiological markers of the status of any patient with stroke or trauma, thereby guiding the development of different rehabilitation approaches, as well as future physiological experiments for a further understanding of postinjury mechanisms of motor control and recovery.

Muscle synergies are neural coordinative structures that function to alleviate the computational burden associated with the control of movement and posture. In this commentary, we address two critical questions: the explicit encoding of muscle synergies in the nervous system, and how muscle synergies simplify movement production. We argue that shared and task-specific muscle synergies are neurophysiological entities whose combination, orchestrated by the motor cortical areas and the afferent systems, facilitates motor control and motor learning.

Previous studies have suggested that the motor system may simplify control by combining a small number of muscle synergies represented as activation profiles across a set of muscles. The role of sensory feedback in the activation and organization of synergies has remained an open question. Here, we assess to what extent the motor system relies on centrally organized synergies activated by spinal and/or supraspinal commands to generate motor outputs by analyzing electromyographic (EMG) signals collected from 13 hindlimb muscles of the bullfrog during swimming and jumping, before and after deafferentation. We first established that, for both behaviors, the intact and deafferented data sets possess low and similar dimensionalities. Subsequently, we used a novel reformulation of the non-negative matrix factorization algorithm to simultaneously search for synergies shared by, and synergies specific to, the intact and deafferented data sets. Most muscle synergies were identified as shared synergies, suggesting that EMGs of locomotor behaviors are generated primarily by centrally organized synergies. Both the amplitude and temporal patterns of the activation coefficients of most shared synergies, however, were altered by deafferentation, suggesting that sensory inflow modulates activation of those centrally organized synergies. For most synergies, effects of deafferentation on the activation coefficients were not consistent across frogs, indicating substantial interanimal variability of feedback actions. We speculate that sensory feedback might adapt recruitment of muscle synergies to behavioral constraints, and the few synergies specific to the intact or deafferented states might represent afferent-specific modules or feedback reorganization of spinal neuronal networks.

Production of voluntary movements relies critically on the functional integration of several motor cortical areas, such as the primary motor cortex, and the spinal circuitries. Surprisingly, after almost 40 years of research, how the motor cortices specify descending neural signals destined for the downstream interneurons and motoneurons has remained elusive. In light of the many recent experimental demonstrations that the motor system may coordinate muscle activations through a linear combination of muscle synergies, we hypothesize that the motor cortices may function to select and activate fixed muscle synergies specified by the spinal or brainstem networks. To test this hypothesis, we recorded electromyograms (EMGs) from 12–16 upper arm and shoulder muscles from both the unaffected and the stroke-affected arms of stroke patients having moderate-to-severe unilateral ischemic lesions in the frontal motor cortical areas. Analyses of EMGs using a nonnegative matrix factorization algorithm revealed that in seven of eight patients the muscular compositions of the synergies for both the unaffected and the affected arms were strikingly similar to each other despite differences in motor performance between the arms, and differences in cerebral lesion sizes and locations between patients. This robustness of muscle synergies that we observed supports the notion that descending cortical signals represent neuronal drives that select, activate, and flexibly combine muscle synergies specified by networks in the spinal cord and/or brainstem. Our conclusion also suggests an approach to stroke rehabilitation by focusing on those synergies with altered activations after stroke.