Mechanisms for human balancing of an inverted pendulum using the ankle strategy

Maintenance of upright, human balance is neurologically and biomechanically a complex process, though the ankle strategy predominates in quiet standing. This investigation seeks insight into the complex problem by studying a reduced, yet related problem of how the ankle mechanisms are used to balance a human proportioned inverted pendulum. A distinguishing feature of the task is that despite one's best efforts to control this unstable load some irreducible sway always remains. Contrary to published ideas, modulation of effective ankle stiffness was not the way that sway size was altered. Rather, position was controlled by an intermittent, neurally modulated, ballistic-like pattern of torque whose anticipatory accuracy was improved to reduce sway size. Using a model, and by direct measurement, I found the intrinsic mechanical ankle stiffness will only partially counter the "gravitational spring". Since this stiffness was substantially constant and cannot be neurally modulated, I attribute it to the foot, tendon and aponeurosis rather than the activated calf muscle fibres. Thus triceps-surae muscles maintain balance via a spring-like element which is itself generally too compliant to provide even minimal stability. I hypothesise that balance is maintained by anticipatory, ballistic-like, biasing of the series-elastic element resulting from intermittent modulation of the triceps-surae

Does the motor system need intermittent control?

Explanation of motor control is dominated by continuous neurophysiological pathways (e.g. trans-cortical, spinal) and the continuous control paradigm. Using new theoretical development, methodology and evidence, we propose intermittent control, which incorporates a serial ballistic process within the main feedback loop, provides a more general and more accurate paradigm necessary to explain attributes highly advantageous for competitive survival and performance

Interfacing sensory input with motor output: does the control architecture converge to a serial process along a single channel?

Modular organization in control architecture may underlie the versatility of human motor control; but the nature of the interface relating sensory input through task-selection in the space of performance variables to control actions in the space of the elemental variables is currently unknown. Our central question is whether the control architecture converges to a serial process along a single channel? In discrete reaction time experiments, psychologists have firmly associated a serial single channel hypothesis with refractoriness and response selection [psychological refractory period (PRP)]. Recently, we developed a methodology and evidence identifying refractoriness in sustained control of an external single degree-of-freedom system. We hypothesize that multi-segmental whole-body control also shows refractoriness. Eight participants controlled their whole body to ensure a head marker tracked a target as fast and accurately as possible. Analysis showed enhanced delays in response to stimuli with close temporal proximity to the preceding stimulus. Consistent with our preceding work, this evidence is incompatible with control as a linear time invariant process. This evidence is consistent with a single-channel serial ballistic process within the intermittent control paradigm with an intermittent interval of around 0.5 s. A control architecture reproducing intentional human movement control must reproduce refractoriness. Intermittent control is designed to provide computational time for an online optimization process and is appropriate for flexible adaptive control. For human motor control we suggest that parallel sensory input converges to a serial, single channel process involving planning, selection, and temporal inhibition of alternative responses prior to low dimensional motor output. Such design could aid robots to reproduce the flexibility of human control