Intermittent control models of human standing: similarities and differences

Two architectures of intermittent control are compared and contrasted in the context of the single inverted pendulum model often used for describing standing in humans. The architectures are similar insofar as they use periods of open-loop control punctuated by switching events when crossing a switching surface to keep the system state trajectories close to trajectories leading to equilibrium. The architectures differ in two significant ways. Firstly, in one case, the open-loop control trajectory is generated by a system-matched hold, and in the other case, the open-loop control signal is zero. Secondly, prediction is used in one case but not the other. The former difference is examined in this paper. The zero control alternative leads to periodic oscillations associated with limit cycles; whereas the system-matched control alternative gives trajectories (including homoclinic orbits) which contain the equilibrium point and do not have oscillatory behaviour. Despite this difference in behaviour, it is further shown that behaviour can appear similar when either the system is perturbed by additive noise or the system-matched trajectory generation is perturbed. The purpose of the research is to come to a common approach for understanding the theoretical properties of the two alternatives with the twin aims of choosing which provides the best explanation of current experimental data (which may not, by itself, distinguish beween the two alternatives) and suggesting future experiments to distinguish between the two alternatives

Conclusions on motor control depend on the type of model used to represent the periphery

Within the field of motor control, there is no consensus on which kinematic and kinetic aspects of movements are planned or controlled. Perturbing goal-directed movements is a frequently used tool to answer this question. To be able to draw conclusions about motor control from kinematic responses to perturbations, a model of the periphery (i.e., the skeleton, muscle-tendon complexes, and spinal reflex circuitry) is required. The purpose of the present study was to determine to what extent such conclusions depend on the level of simplification with which the dynamical properties of the periphery are modeled. For this purpose, we simulated fast goal-directed single-joint movement with four existing types of models. We tested how three types of perturbations affected movement trajectory if motor commands remained unchanged. We found that the four types of models of the periphery showed different robustness to the perturbations, leading to different predictions on how accurate motor commands need to be, i.e., how accurate the knowledge of external conditions needs to be. This means that when interpreting kinematic responses obtained in perturbation experiments the level of error correction attributed to adaptation of motor commands depends on the type of model used to describe the periphery