Literature DB >> 22895830

Optimal isn't good enough.

Gerald E Loeb1.   

Abstract

The notion that biological systems come to embody optimal solutions seems consistent with the competitive drive of evolution. It has been used to interpret many examples of sensorimotor behavior. It is attractive from the viewpoint of control engineers because it solves the redundancy problem by identifying the one optimal motor strategy out of many similarly acceptable possibilities. This perspective examines whether there is sufficient basis to apply the formal engineering tools of optimal control to a reductionist understanding of biological systems. For an experimental biologist, this translates into whether the theory of optimal control generates nontrivial and testable hypotheses that accurately predict novel phenomena, ideally at deeper levels of structure than the observable behavior. The methodology of optimal control is applicable when there is (i) a single, known cost function to be optimized, (ii) an invertible model of the plant, and (iii) simple noise interfering with optimal performance. None of these is likely to be true for biological organisms. Furthermore, their motivation is usually good-enough rather than globally optimal behavior. Even then, the performance of a biological organism is often much farther from optimal than the physical limits of its hardware because the brain is continuously testing the acceptable limits of performance as well as just performing the task. This perspective considers an alternative strategy called "good-enough" control, in which the organism uses trial-and-error learning to acquire a repertoire of sensorimotor behaviors that are known to be useful, but not necessarily optimal. This leads to a diversity of solutions that tends to confer robustness on the individual organism and its evolution. It is also more consistent with the capabilities of higher sensorimotor structures, such as cerebral cortex, which seems to be designed to classify and recall complex sets of information, thereby allowing the organism to learn from experience, rather than to compute new strategies online. Optimal control has been a useful metaphor for understanding some superficial aspects of motor psychophysics. Reductionists who want to understand the underlying neural mechanisms need to move on.

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22895830     DOI: 10.1007/s00422-012-0514-6

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


  55 in total

1.  Long-term training modifies the modular structure and organization of walking balance control.

Authors:  Andrew Sawers; Jessica L Allen; Lena H Ting
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2015-10-14       Impact factor: 2.714

2.  Two-phase strategy of neural control for planar reaching movements: II--relation to spatiotemporal characteristics of movement trajectory.

Authors:  Miya K Rand; Yury P Shimansky
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2013-06-29       Impact factor: 1.972

3.  Invariant geometric characteristics of spatial arm motion.

Authors:  Satyajit Ambike; James P Schmiedeler
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2013-06-15       Impact factor: 1.972

4.  Motor neuronal activity varies least among individuals when it matters most for behavior.

Authors:  Miranda J Cullins; Kendrick M Shaw; Jeffrey P Gill; Hillel J Chiel
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2014-11-19       Impact factor: 2.714

5.  Stochastic modelling of muscle recruitment during activity.

Authors:  Saulo Martelli; Daniela Calvetti; Erkki Somersalo; Marco Viceconti
Journal:  Interface Focus       Date:  2015-04-06       Impact factor: 3.906

Review 6.  Modeling the Role of Sensory Feedback in Speech Motor Control and Learning.

Authors:  Benjamin Parrell; John Houde
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2019-08-29       Impact factor: 2.297

7.  Challenging Conventional Paradigms in Applied Sports Biomechanics Research.

Authors:  Paul S Glazier; Sina Mehdizadeh
Journal:  Sports Med       Date:  2019-02       Impact factor: 11.136

8.  Quantal biomechanical effects in speech postures of the lips.

Authors:  Bryan Gick; Connor Mayer; Chenhao Chiu; Erik Widing; François Roewer-Després; Sidney Fels; Ian Stavness
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2020-07-29       Impact factor: 2.714

9.  Highlights from the 28th Annual Meeting of the Society for the Neural Control of Movement.

Authors:  Kevin A Mazurek; Michael Berger; Tejapratap Bollu; Raeed H Chowdhury; Naveen Elangovan; Irene A Kuling; M Hongchul Sohn
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2018-07-18       Impact factor: 2.714

10.  A computationally efficient strategy to estimate muscle forces in a finite element musculoskeletal model of the lower limb.

Authors:  Alessandro Navacchia; Donald R Hume; Paul J Rullkoetter; Kevin B Shelburne
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2018-12-28       Impact factor: 2.712

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.