Literature DB >> 35366107

Change in task conditions leads to changes in intermittency in intermittent feedback control employed by CNS in control of human stance.

Ranjita Dash1, Harish J Palanthandalam-Madapusi2.   

Abstract

Event-driven intermittent feedback control is a form of feedback control in which the corrective control action is only initiated intermittently when the variables of interest exceed certain threshold criteria. It has been reported in the literature that the CNS uses an event-driven intermittent control strategy to stabilize the human upright posture. However, whether the threshold criteria may change under different postural task conditions is not yet well understood. We employ a numerical study with inverted pendulum models and an experimental study with 51 young healthy individuals (13 females and 38 males; age: 27.8 ± 6.5 years) with stabilogram-diffusion, temporal and spectral analysis applied to COP (Center of Pressure) trajectories measured from these experiments to examine this aspect. The present study provides compelling evidence that inducing a natural arm swing during quiet stance appears to lead to higher sensory dead zone in neuronal control reflecting higher intermittency thresholds in active feedback control and a corresponding lower sensory dependence. Beyond the obvious scientific interest in understanding this aspect of how CNS controls the standing posture, an investigation of the said control strategy may subsequently help uncover insights about how control of quiet stance degrades with age and in diseased conditions. Additionally, such an understanding will also be of interest to the humanoid robotics community as it may lead to insights leading to improving control strategies for posture control in robots.
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Center of pressure (COP); Central nervous system (CNS); Human quiet stance; Intermittent feedback control; Posturography

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35366107     DOI: 10.1007/s00422-022-00927-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Biol Cybern        ISSN: 0340-1200            Impact factor:   3.072


  14 in total

1.  Direct measurement of human ankle stiffness during quiet standing: the intrinsic mechanical stiffness is insufficient for stability.

Authors:  Ian D Loram; Martin Lakie
Journal:  J Physiol       Date:  2002-12-15       Impact factor: 5.182

2.  The assessment of body sway and the choice of the stability parameter(s).

Authors:  J A Raymakers; M M Samson; H J J Verhaar
Journal:  Gait Posture       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 2.840

3.  Synthesis of natural arm swing motion in human bipedal walking.

Authors:  Jaeheung Park
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2008-04-15       Impact factor: 2.712

4.  Microchaos in human postural balance: Sensory dead zones and sampled time-delayed feedback.

Authors:  John G Milton; Tamas Insperger; Walter Cook; David Money Harris; Gabor Stepan
Journal:  Phys Rev E       Date:  2018-08       Impact factor: 2.529

5.  Limit cycle oscillations in standing human posture.

Authors:  James R Chagdes; Shirley Rietdyk; Jeffrey M Haddad; Howard N Zelaznik; Michael E Cinelli; Luke T Denomme; Kaley C Powers; Arvind Raman
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2016-03-08       Impact factor: 2.712

6.  Open-loop and closed-loop control of posture: a random-walk analysis of center-of-pressure trajectories.

Authors:  J J Collins; C J De Luca
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  1993       Impact factor: 1.972

7.  Identification of intermittent control in man and machine.

Authors:  Ian D Loram; Cornelis van de Kamp; Henrik Gollee; Peter J Gawthrop
Journal:  J R Soc Interface       Date:  2012-04-04       Impact factor: 4.118

8.  Assessment of postural instability in patients with Parkinson's disease.

Authors:  J W Błaszczyk; R Orawiec; D Duda-Kłodowska; G Opala
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2007-07-04       Impact factor: 1.972

9.  Smooth enlargement of human standing sway by instability due to weak reaction floor and noise.

Authors:  Tetsuro Funato; Shinya Aoi; Nozomi Tomita; Kazuo Tsuchiya
Journal:  R Soc Open Sci       Date:  2016-01-06       Impact factor: 2.963

10.  A Sensitivity Analysis of an Inverted Pendulum Balance Control Model.

Authors:  Jantsje H Pasma; Tjitske A Boonstra; Joost van Kordelaar; Vasiliki V Spyropoulou; Alfred C Schouten
Journal:  Front Comput Neurosci       Date:  2017-10-27       Impact factor: 2.380

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.