| Literature DB >> 18946526 |
Felix Patzelt1, Markus Riegel, Udo Ernst, Klaus Pawelzik.
Abstract
When humans perform closed loop control tasks like in upright standing or while balancing a stick, their behavior exhibits non-Gaussian fluctuations with long-tailed distributions. The origin of these fluctuations is not known. Here, we investigate if they are caused by self-organized critical noise amplification which emerges in control systems when an unstable dynamics becomes stabilized by an adaptive controller that has finite memory. Starting from this theory, we formulate a realistic model of adaptive closed loop control by including constraints on memory and delays. To test this model, we performed psychophysical experiments where humans balanced an unstable target on a screen. It turned out that the model reproduces the long tails of the distributions together with other characteristic features of the human control dynamics. Fine-tuning the model to match the experimental dynamics identifies parameters characterizing a subject's control system which can be independently tested. Our results suggest that the nervous system involved in closed loop motor control nearly optimally estimates system parameters on-line from very short epochs of past observations.Entities:
Keywords: adaptation; fluctuations; learning; multiplicative noise; non-gaussianity; power law; self-organized criticality; sensory-motor system
Year: 2007 PMID: 18946526 PMCID: PMC2525932 DOI: 10.3389/neuro.10.004.2007
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Comput Neurosci ISSN: 1662-5188 Impact factor: 2.380
Figure 1Control of a virtual target T (circle) on a computer screen (rectangle) by movements of a computer mouse M (black dot). The arrow indicates that the movement of the target depends on the relative position of T and M.
Figure 2Results for the basic model. () Time series of the distances Y = |y| versus iteration steps. () Complementary cumulative distribution function of Y. The linear dependency observed in double logarithmic presentation exhibits clear power law behavior for large Y with a corresponding exponent δ =2.0 as predicted analytically (24). () The power spectrum for large frequencies scales with exponent 0.33. For low frequencies, it is constant. () The variance of the cumulated magnitudes scales with a Hurst exponent close to 0.5. (), () Autocorrelation of Y on different lag ranges. Contrary to intuition, no anti-correlation occurs.
Figure 4Simulation of the extended model with a delay of n = 10 steps and memory with ∈ = 0.85. These parameters lead to statistical properties that qualitatively resemble the properties of the experimental data. () Time series of the distances Y = |y| over iteration steps. () Complementary cumulative distribution function of Y. The linear dependency in double logarithmic scaling exhibits clear power law behavior for large Y with a corresponding exponent δ =3.0 in P(Y). () The power spectrum for large frequencies initially scales with exponent 0.63 and then with an exponent 2.04. For low frequencies, it is constant. () Variance of the cumulated magnitudes scales with a Hurst Exponent of H = 0.7 and after 10 steps it then evolves to a scaling behavior with a Hurst exponent close to 0.5. () The autocorrelation of Y shows an exponential decay for short lags. () The autocorrelation quickly decays to zero and shows only very marginal anti-correlation.
Figure 5Tail exponent δ for different combinations of delay and decaying memory. Fitted using the Hill estimator, as described in Subsection Data Analysis. The rank-ordered absolute values of Y have been averaged for 10 simulations with 109 time steps each with α0 = 2 and σ =0.8. For a fixed delay larger than 6, the exponent increases monotonously.
Figure 6Tail exponent δ for simulations with parameter ranges as in Figure . In the presence of a delay, the exponent initially grows when increasing the memory length and decreases again for longer memories.
Mean of the exponents δ of the distributions of |Y|, of the exponents of both regimes of power-law scaling in the spectral density, of the Hurst exponents and characteristic decay constants of the autocorrelations for the different subjects.
| Subject (days/trials) | #1 (4/36) | #2 (4/36) | #3 (13/74) | #4 (5/56) | #5 (5/50) | #6 (4/40) | #7 (4/17) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tail exponent δ | 3.7 ± 0.1 | 3.5 ± 0.1 | 4.2 ± 0.2 | 3.5 ± 0.4 | 4.3 ± 0.2 | 3.8 ± 0.2 | 4.4 ± 0.1 |
| Spectrum exponent 1 | 0.75 ± 0.09 | 0.9 ± 0.1 | 0.9 ± 0.1 | 1.00 ± 0.05 | 0.90 ± 0.09 | 0.93 ± 0.04 | 0.56 ± 0.07 |
| Spectrum exponent 2 | 2.1 ± 0.4 | 2.6 ± 0.1 | 2.7 ± 0.2 | 2.7 ± 0.2 | 2.79 ± 0.04 | 3.00 ± 0.08 | 2.40 ± 0.03 |
| Hurst exponent before crossover | 0.968 ± 0.002 | 0.982 ± 0.002 | 0.980 ± 0.003 | 0.973 ± 0.002 | 0.975 ± 0.002 | 0.971 ± 0.001 | 0.965 ± 0 |
| Autocorrelation decay constant [seconds] | 1.2 ± 0.1 | 1.1 ± 0.2 | 3 ± 1 | 0.92 ± 0.09 | 1.0 ± 0.3 | 0.4 ± 0.1 | 1.0 ± 0.4 |
For each day, the values have been calculated from the combined time series. These fitted values have then been averaged. Errors are standard errors. The all values for experiments with constant conditions are in the same range as for experiments with changing conditions. For subjects 1, 2, 3 α0 was constant while for subjects 4, 5, 6, 7 α0 was switched every second to a random value in {3, 4, 5, 6}.
Figure 3Analysis of the combined time series from day 3 of subject 4. () Time series of the distances Y over iteration steps. () Complementary cumulative distribution function of Y. The linear behavior in double logarithmic scaling exhibits clear power law behavior for large Y with a corresponding exponent of δ = 3.0 in P(Y). () The power spectrum for large frequencies initially scales with exponent 1.56 and then with an exponent 2.38. For low frequencies, it is constant. () Variance of the cumulated magnitudes scales with a Hurst Exponent of H = 1.0 and then evolves to a Hurst exponent close to 0.5. () The autocorrelation of Y shows an exponential decay for short lags. () It quickly decays to zero without overshoot.