Neuromorphic meets neuromechanics, part II: the role of fusimotor drive Kian Jalaleddini1, Chuanxin Minos Niu2, Suraj Chakravarthi Raja3, Won Joon Sohn6, Gerald E Loeb4, Terence D Sanger3,4,5 and Francisco J Valero-Cuevas1,4,7

Objective. We studied the fundamentals of muscle afferentation by building a Neuro– mechano–morphic system actuating a cadaveric finger. This system is a faithful implementation of the stretch reflex circuitry. It allowed the systematic exploration of the effects of different fusimotor drives to the muscle spindle on the closed-loop stretch reflex response. Approach. As in Part I of this work, sensory neurons conveyed proprioceptive information from muscle spindles (with static and dynamic fusimotor drive) to populations of α-motor neurons (with recruitment and rate coding properties). The motor commands were transformed into tendon forces by a Hill-type muscle model (with activation-contraction dynamics) via brushless DC motors. Two independent afferented muscles emulated the forces of flexor digitorum profundus and the extensor indicis proprius muscles, forming an antagonist pair at the metacarpophalangeal joint of a cadaveric index finger. We measured the physical response to repetitions of bi-directional ramp-and-hold rotational perturbations for 81 combinations of static and dynamic fusimotor drives, across four ramp velocities, and three levels of constant cortical drive to the α-motor neuron pool. Main results. We found that this system produced responses compatible with the physiological literature. Fusimotor and cortical drives had nonlinear effects on the reflex forces. In particular, only cortical drive affected the sensitivity of reflex forces to static fusimotor drive. In contrast, both static fusimotor and cortical drives reduced the sensitivity to dynamic fusimotor drive. Interestingly, realistic signal-dependent motor noise emerged naturally in our system without having been explicitly modeled. Significance. We demonstrate that these fundamental features of spinal afferentation sufficed to produce muscle function. As such, our Neuro–mechano–morphic system is a viable platform to study the spinal mechanisms for healthy muscle function—and its pathologies such as dystonia and spasticity. In addition, it is a working prototype of a robust biomorphic controller for compliant robotic limbs and exoskeletons. K Jalaleddini et al Neuromorphic meets neuromechanics, part II: the role of fusimotor drive Printed in the UK 025002 JNEIEZ © 2017 IOP Publishing Ltd 14 J. Neural Eng.