Objective: To explain the 0.2-2Hz oscillation in human balance. Motivation: Oscillation (0.2-2 Hz) in the control signal (ankle moment) is sustained independently of external disturbances and exaggerated in Parkinson's disease. Does resonance or limit cycles in the neurophysiological feedback loop cause this oscillation? We investigate two linear (non-predictive, predictive) and one non-linear (intermittent-predictive) control model (NPC, PC, IPC). Methods: Fourteen healthy participants, strapped to an actuated single segment robot with dynamics of upright standing, used natural haptic-visual feedback and myoelectric control signals from lower leg muscles to maintain balance. An input disturbance applied stepwise changes in external force. A linear time invariant model (ARX) extracted the delayed component of the control signal related linearly to the disturbance, leaving the remaining, larger, oscillatory non-linear component. We optimized model parameters and noise (observation, motor) to replicate concurrently (i) estimated-delay, (ii) time-series of the linear component, and (iii) magnitude-frequency spectrum and transient magnitude response of the non-linear component. Results (mean±S.D., p<0.05): NPC produced estimated delays (0.116±0.03s) significantly lower than experiment (0.145±0.04s). Overall fit (i)-(iii) was (79±7%, 83±7%, 84±6% for NPC, PC, IPC). IPC required little or no noise. Mean frequency of experimental oscillation (0.99±0.16 Hz) correlated trial by trial with closed loop resonant frequency (fres), not limit cycles, nor sampling rate. NPC (0.36±0.08Hz) and PC (0.86±0.4Hz) showed fres significantly lower than IPC (0.98±0.2Hz). Conclusion: Human balance control requires short-term prediction. Significance: IPC mechanisms (prediction error, threshold related sampling, sequential re-initialization of open-loop predictive control) explain resonant gain without uncontrolled oscillation for healthy balance.

@en

Explanation of motor control is dominated by continuous neurophysiological pathways (e.g., transcortical, 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.

@en

Modular organisation 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). Recently, we developed a methodology and evidence identifying refractoriness in sustained control of an external single degree-of- freedom system. We hypothesise 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 optimisation 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.@en

Researchers have previously adopted the double stimulus paradigm to study refractoriness in human neuromotor control. Currently, refractoriness, such as the Psychological Refractory Period (PRP) has only been quantified in discrete movement conditions. Whether refractoriness and the associated serial ballistic hypothesis generalises to sustained control tasks has remained open for more than sixty years. Recently, a method of analysis has been presented that quantifies refractoriness in sustained control tasks and discriminates intermittent (serial ballistic) from continuous control. Following our recent demonstration that continuous control of an unstable second order system (i.e. balancing a 'virtual' inverted pendulum through a joystick interface) is unnecessary, we ask whether refractoriness of substantial duration (~200 ms) is evident in sustained visual-manual control of external systems. We ask whether the refractory duration (i) is physiologically intrinsic, (ii) depends upon system properties like the order (0, 1st, and 2nd) or stability, (iii) depends upon target jump direction (reversal, same direction). Thirteen participants used discrete movements (zero order system) as well as more sustained control activity (1st and 2nd order systems) to track unpredictable step-sequence targets. Results show a substantial refractory duration that depends upon system order (250, 350 and 550 ms for 0, 1st and 2nd order respectively, n = 13, p<0.05), but not stability. In sustained control refractoriness was only found when the target reverses direction. In the presence of time varying actuators, systems and constraints, we propose that central refractoriness is an appropriate control mechanism for accommodating online optimization delays within the neural circuitry including the more variable processing times of higher order (complex) input-output relations.@en

Regulation by negative feedback is fundamental to engineering and biological processes. Biological regulation is usually explained using continuous feedback models from both classical and modern control theory. An alternative control paradigm, intermittent control, has also been suggested as a model for biological control systems, particularly those involving the central nervous system. However, at present, there is no identification method explicitly formulated to distinguish intermittent from continuous control; here, we present such a method. The identification experiment uses a special paired-step set-point sequence. The corresponding data analysis use a conventional ARMA model to relate a theoretically derived equivalent set-point to control signal; the novelty lies in sequentially and iteratively adjusting the timing of the steps of this equivalent set-point to optimize the linear time-invariant fit. The method was verified using realistic simulation data and was found to robustly distinguish not only between continuous and intermittent control but also between event-driven intermittent and clock-driven intermittent control. When applied to human pursuit tracking, event-driven intermittent control was identified, with an intermittent interval of 260-310 ms (n = 6, p < 0.05). This new identification method is applicable for machine and biological applications.@en