Literature DB >> 15703940

Comparing internal models of the dynamics of the visual environment.

Sean Carver1, Tim Kiemel, Herman van der Kooij, John J Jeka.   

Abstract

It is well known that the human postural control system responds to motion of the visual scene, but the implicit assumptions it makes about the visual environment and what quantities, if any, it estimates about the visual environment are unknown. This study compares the behavior of four models of the human postural control system to experimental data. Three include internal models that estimate the state of the visual environment, implicitly assuming its dynamics to be that of a linear stochastic process (respectively, a random walk, a general first-order process, and a general second-order process). In each case, all of the coefficients that describe the process are estimated by an adaptive scheme based on maximum likelihood. The fourth model does not estimate the state of the visual environment. It adjusts sensory weights to minimize the mean square of the control signal without making any specific assumptions about the dynamic properties of the environmental motion. We find that both having an internal model of the visual environment and its type make a significant difference in how the postural system responds to motion of the visual scene. Notably, the second-order process model outperforms the human postural system in its response to sinusoidal stimulation. Specifically, the second-order process model can correctly identify the frequency of the stimulus and completely compensate so that the motion of the visual scene has no effect on sway. In this case the postural control system extracts the same information from the visual modality as it does when the visual scene is stationary. The fourth model that does not simulate the motion of the visual environment is the only one that reproduces the experimentally observed result that, across different frequencies of sinusoidal stimulation, the gain with respect to the stimulus drops as the amplitude of the stimulus increases but the phase remains roughly constant. Our results suggest that the human postural control system does not estimate the state of the visual environment to respond to sinusoidal stimuli.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15703940     DOI: 10.1007/s00422-004-0535-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Biol Cybern        ISSN: 0340-1200            Impact factor:   2.086


  18 in total

1.  Slow dynamics of postural sway are in the feedback loop.

Authors:  Tim Kiemel; Kelvin S Oie; John J Jeka
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2005-09-28       Impact factor: 2.714

2.  Multisensory reweighting of vision and touch is intact in healthy and fall-prone older adults.

Authors:  Leslie K Allison; Tim Kiemel; John J Jeka
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2006-07-21       Impact factor: 1.972

3.  Sensory reweighting with translational visual stimuli in young and elderly adults: the role of state-dependent noise.

Authors:  John Jeka; Leslie Allison; Mark Saffer; Yuanfen Zhang; Sean Carver; Tim Kiemel
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2006-05-23       Impact factor: 1.972

4.  The influence of sensory information on two-component coordination during quiet stance.

Authors:  Yuanfen Zhang; Tim Kiemel; John Jeka
Journal:  Gait Posture       Date:  2006-10-13       Impact factor: 2.840

5.  Dynamics of inter-modality re-weighting during human postural control.

Authors:  Paula F Polastri; José A Barela; Tim Kiemel; John J Jeka
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2012-09-11       Impact factor: 1.972

6.  Non-linear stimulus-response behavior of the human stance control system is predicted by optimization of a system with sensory and motor noise.

Authors:  Herman van der Kooij; Robert J Peterka
Journal:  J Comput Neurosci       Date:  2010-12-15       Impact factor: 1.621

7.  Self versus environment motion in postural control.

Authors:  Kalpana Dokka; Robert V Kenyon; Emily A Keshner; Konrad P Kording
Journal:  PLoS Comput Biol       Date:  2010-02-19       Impact factor: 4.475

8.  Optimal motor control may mask sensory dynamics.

Authors:  Sean G Carver; Tim Kiemel; Noah J Cowan; John J Jeka
Journal:  Biol Cybern       Date:  2009-05-01       Impact factor: 2.086

9.  Development of multisensory reweighting for posture control in children.

Authors:  Woei-Nan Bair; Tim Kiemel; John J Jeka; Jane E Clark
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2007-07-31       Impact factor: 1.972

10.  A mechanism for sensory re-weighting in postural control.

Authors:  Arash Mahboobin; Patrick Loughlin; Chris Atkeson; Mark Redfern
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2009-03-27       Impact factor: 2.602

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.