Literature DB >> 18030458

Human stance control beyond steady state response and inverted pendulum simplification.

G Schweigart1, T Mergner.   

Abstract

Systems theory analyses have suggested that human upright stance can be modelled in terms of continuous multi-sensory feedback control. So far, these analyses have considered mainly steady-state responses to periodic stimuli and relied on a simplifying model of the body's mechanics in the form of an inverted pendulum. Therefore, they may have ignored relevant aspects of the postural behaviour. To prove a more general validity of a stance control model that we previously derived from such analyses, we now presented subjects with static-dynamic stimulus combinations and assessed response transients, anterior-posterior (a-p) response asymmetries, and possible deviations from the 'inverted pendulum' simplification (by measuring hip and knee bending). We presented normal subjects (Ns) and vestibular loss patients (Ps) with a-p support surface tilt on a motion platform under the instruction to maintain, with eyes closed, the body upright in space. In addition, subjects were to indicate perceived platform tilt with the help of pointers. We combined a fixed-amplitude sinusoidal tilt (0.1 Hz) with static tilts that were varied in amplitude and direction. We recorded upper body (shoulder) and lower body (hip) excursions in space and centre of pressure (COP) shift, and calculated the centre of mass (COM) angular excursion. We found that: (1) Immediately prior to stimulus onset (which was highly predictable), subjects showed a small anticipatory forward lean. (2) The subsequent transient response consisted of two parts. First, the body was moved along with the platform tilt and then, in the second part, the body excursion was braked by starting tilt compensation. Upon increasing tilt amplitude, the braking point showed a pronounced saturation with for-aft asymmetry. (3) During the following prolonged tilt, the tonic body excursions saturated with increasing static tilt amplitude. This saturation also showed a for-aft asymmetry (backwards saturation more pronounced). In contrast, the dynamic body excursions did not depend on the static tilt stimulus. (4) Tilt compensation occurred mainly in the ankle joints, but also involved small synergistic bendings in hips and knees in fixed register to the ankle rotation. (5) After the end of the stimulus, the body returned towards primary position, followed by a pronounced and slowly decaying tonic overshoot which was mainly related to tilt amplitude and initial tonic body excursion. (6) The responses of Ps qualitatively resembled those of Ns, apart from larger body excursions, less pronounced saturations, and less for-aft asymmetries. (7) Perceived platform tilt of Ns and Ps was correlated with their postural tilt compensations, but unlike the postural responses the perceptual responses overestimated actual static and dynamic tilt by a factor of 3-4. Our findings suggest two, so far undescribed and highly nonlinear mechanisms in human stance control. (a) The braking during the transient response appears to reflect a 'sensory reweighting switch' by which subjects change from a control that is referenced to the support to one that is referenced to space. (b) The saturation of the tonic body excursion also reflects a sensory reweighting mechanism; by this, subjects keep their balancing within a certain excursion limit. The two mechanisms were originally not predicted by our stance control model, but do not invalidate it, because they can simply be added to it. Also the observed for-aft asymmetries can be accounted for (by making thresholds in the two mechanisms asymmetric). In its extended form, the model mimics the previous and the new findings. We also conclude that the 'inverted pendulum' simplification is a legitimate simplification. We demonstrate the utility of the model by implementing it into a humanoid robot that then mimics closely the human experimental data. Finally, we present a hypothetical concept on sensory reweighting mechanisms in human stance control, which is meant to serve as a framework for future research.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 18030458     DOI: 10.1007/s00221-007-1189-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Exp Brain Res        ISSN: 0014-4819            Impact factor:   1.972


  29 in total

1.  A multisensory integration model of human stance control.

Authors:  H van der Kooij; R Jacobs; B Koopman; H Grootenboer
Journal:  Biol Cybern       Date:  1999-05       Impact factor: 2.086

2.  Postural control model interpretation of stabilogram diffusion analysis.

Authors:  R J Peterka
Journal:  Biol Cybern       Date:  2000-04       Impact factor: 2.086

3.  Limited control strategies with the loss of vestibular function.

Authors:  Rob Creath; Tim Kiemel; Fay Horak; John J Jeka
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2002-06-13       Impact factor: 1.972

4.  Sensorimotor integration in human postural control.

Authors:  R J Peterka
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 2.714

5.  Vestibular, visual, and somatosensory contributions to human control of upright stance.

Authors:  C Maurer; T Mergner; B Bolha; F Hlavacka
Journal:  Neurosci Lett       Date:  2000-03-10       Impact factor: 3.046

6.  Sensory re-weighting in human postural control during moving-scene perturbations.

Authors:  Arash Mahboobin; Patrick J Loughlin; Mark S Redfern; Patrick J Sparto
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2005-11-15       Impact factor: 1.972

7.  Analysis of the posture control system under fixed and sway-referenced support conditions.

Authors:  A Ishida; S Imai; Y Fukuoka
Journal:  IEEE Trans Biomed Eng       Date:  1997-05       Impact factor: 4.538

8.  Standing man, slow rhythmic tilting, importance of vision.

Authors:  E G Walsh
Journal:  Agressologie       Date:  1973-09

9.  Dynamic regulation of sensorimotor integration in human postural control.

Authors:  Robert J Peterka; Patrick J Loughlin
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2003-09-17       Impact factor: 2.714

Review 10.  Human postural dynamics.

Authors:  R Johansson; M Magnusson
Journal:  Crit Rev Biomed Eng       Date:  1991
View more
  17 in total

1.  Balancing on tightropes and slacklines.

Authors:  P Paoletti; L Mahadevan
Journal:  J R Soc Interface       Date:  2012-04-18       Impact factor: 4.118

2.  Influence of vision on adaptive postural responses following standing on an incline.

Authors:  Gammon M Earhart; Josée M Henckens; Patricia Carlson-Kuhta; Fay B Horak
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2010-03-25       Impact factor: 1.972

3.  Velocity dependence of vestibular information for postural control on tilting surfaces.

Authors:  Fay B Horak; JoAnn Kluzik; Frantisek Hlavacka
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2016-07-13       Impact factor: 2.714

4.  Comparison of human and humanoid robot control of upright stance.

Authors:  Robert J Peterka
Journal:  J Physiol Paris       Date:  2009-08-07

5.  Continuous visual field motion impacts the postural responses of older and younger women during and after support surface tilt.

Authors:  Jill C Slaboda; Richard T Lauer; Emily A Keshner
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2011-04-09       Impact factor: 1.972

6.  Stiffness and damping in postural control increase with age.

Authors:  Massimo Cenciarini; Patrick J Loughlin; Patrick J Sparto; Mark S Redfern
Journal:  IEEE Trans Biomed Eng       Date:  2009-09-18       Impact factor: 4.538

7.  Potential roles of force cues in human stance control.

Authors:  Christian Cnyrim; Thomas Mergner; Christoph Maurer
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2009-02-14       Impact factor: 1.972

8.  Reflex pathways connect receptors in the human lower leg to the erector spinae muscles of the lower back.

Authors:  J M Clair; Y Okuma; J E Misiaszek; D F Collins
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2009-05-30       Impact factor: 1.972

9.  Postural feedback scaling deficits in Parkinson's disease.

Authors:  Seyoung Kim; Fay B Horak; Patricia Carlson-Kuhta; Sukyung Park
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2009-09-09       Impact factor: 2.714

10.  Postural control and risk of falling in bipodalic and monopodalic stabilometric tests of healthy subjects before, after visuo-proprioceptive vestibulo-postural rehabilitation and at 3 months thereafter: role of the proprioceptive system.

Authors:  P De Carli; M Patrizi; L Pepe; G Cavaniglia; D Riva; L R D'Ottavi
Journal:  Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 2.124

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.