Advertisement

Experimental Brain Research

, Volume 180, Issue 1, pp 163–179 | Cite as

Motor equivalent control of the center of mass in response to support surface perturbations

  • J. P. Scholz
  • G. Schöner
  • W. L. Hsu
  • J. J. Jeka
  • F. Horak
  • V. Martin
Research Article

Abstract

To claim that the center of mass (CM) of the body is a controlled variable of the postural system is difficult to verify experimentally. In this report, a new variant of the method of the uncontrolled manifold (UCM) hypothesis was used to evaluate CM control in response to an abrupt surface perturbation during stance. Subjects stood upright on a support surface that was displaced in the posterior direction. Support surface translations between 0.03 and 0.12 m, each lasting for 275 ms, were presented randomly. The UCM corresponding to all possible combinations of joints that are equivalent with respect to producing the average pre-perturbation anterior–posterior position of the center of mass (CMAP) were linearly estimated for each trial. At each point in time thereafter, the difference between the current joint configuration and the average pre-perturbation joint configuration was computed. This joint difference vector was then projected onto the pre-perturbation UCM as a measure of motor equivalence, and onto its complementary subspace, which represents joint combinations that lead to a different CMAP position. A similar analysis was performed related to control of the trunk’s spatial orientation. The extent to which the joint velocity vector acted to stabilize the CMAP position was also examined. Excursions of the hip and ankle joints both increased linearly with perturbation magnitude. The configuration of joints at each instance during the perturbation differed from the mean configuration prior to the perturbation, as evidenced by the joint difference vector. Most of this joint difference vector was consistent, however, with the average pre-perturbation CMAP position rather than leading to a different CMAP position. This was not the case, however, when performing this analysis with respect to the UCM corresponding to the control of the pre-perturbation trunk orientation. The projection of the instantaneous joint velocity vector also was found to lie primarily in the UCM corresponding to the pre-perturbation CMAP position, indicating that joint motion was damped in directions leading to a change away from the pre-perturbation CMAP position. These results provide quantitative support for the argument that the CM position is a planned variable of the postural system and that its control is achieved through selective, motor equivalent changes in the joint configuration in response to support surface perturbations. The results suggest that the nervous system accomplishes postural control by a control strategy that considers all DOFs. This strategy presumably resists combinations of DOFs that affect the stability of important task-relevant variables (CMAP position) while, to a large extent, freeing from control combinations of those DOFs that have no effect on the task-relevant variables (Schöner in Ecol Psychol 8:291–314, 1995).

Keywords

Posture Motor control Reflexes Synergy Quiet stance 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to recognize Dr. Sue Park for collection of the data used in this report. Support for this research was partially provided by NIH grant NS-50880 awarded to John Scholz, NIH grants 2RO1NS35070 and 1RO1NS046065 (NSF/NIH Collaborative Research in Computational Neuroscience Program) awarded to John Jeka, and NIH grants R29DC0231201A1 and NIH grant R01AG06457 to Fay Horak.

References

  1. Abbs JH, Gracco VL (1984) Control of complex motor gestures: orofacial muscle responses to load perturbations of lip during speech. J Neurophysiol 51:705–723PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Alexandrov A, Frolov AA, Horak F, Carlson-Kuhta P, Park S (2004) Biomechanical analysis of strategies of equilibrium control during human upright standing. Russ J Biomech 8:28–42Google Scholar
  3. Bottaro A, Casadio M, Morasso PG, Sanguineti V (2005) Body sway during quiet standing: is it the residual chattering of an intermittent stabilization process? Hum Mov Sci 24:588–615PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cole KJ, Abbs JH (1987) Kinematic and electromyographic responses to perturbation of a rapid grasp. J Neurophysiol 57:1498–1510PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Corriveau H, Hébert R, Raîche M, Dubois M-F, Prince F (2004) Postural stability in the elderly: empirical confirmation of a theoretical model. Arch Gerontol Geriatr 39:163–177PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Creath T, Kiemel T, Horak F, Peterka R, Jeka J (2005) A unified view of quiet and perturbed stance: simultaneous co-existing excitable modes. Neurosci Lett 377(2):75–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Diener HC, Horak FB, Nashner LM (1988) Influence of stimulus parameters on human postural responses. J Neurophysiol 59:1888–1905PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Feitas SM, Duarte M, Latash ML (2006) Two kinematic synergies in voluntary whole-body movements during standing. J Neurophysiol 95:636–645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gage WH, Winter DA, Frank JS, Adkin AL (2004) Kinematic and kinetic validity of the inverted pendulum model in quiet standing. Gait Posture 19:124–132PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gurfinkel VS, Ivanenko Yu P, Levik Yu S, Babakova IA (1995) Kinesthetic reference for human orthograde posture. Neuroscience 68:229–243PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Horak FB (1996) Adaptation of automatic postural responses. In: Bloedel J, Ebner TJ, Wise SP (eds) Acquisition of motor behavior in vertebrates. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 57–85Google Scholar
  12. Horak F, Kuo A (2000) Postural adaptation for altered environments, tasks, and intentions. In: J Winter P Crago P (eds) Biomechanics & neural control of posture. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 267–281Google Scholar
  13. Horak FB, Nashner LM (1986) Central programming of postural movements: adaptation to altered support-surface configurations. J Neurophysiol 55:1369–1381PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Horak FB, Diener HC, Nashner LM (1989) Influence of central set on human postural responses. J Neurophysiol 62:841–853PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Jeka J, Kiemel T, Creath R, Horak F, Peterka R (2004) Controlling human upright posture: velocity information is more accurate than position or acceleration. J Neurophysiol 92:2368–2379PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kelso JA, Tuller B, Vatikiotis-Bateson E, Fowler CA (1984) Functionally specific articulatory cooperation following jaw perturbations during speech: evidence for coordinative structures. J Exp Physcol Hum Percept Perform 10(6):812–832CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kiemel T, Oie KS, Jeka JJ (2005) The slow dynamics of postural sway are in the feedback loop. J Neurophysiol (in press)Google Scholar
  18. van der Kooij H, Jacobs R, Koopman B, van der Helm F (2001) An adaptive model of sensory integration in a dynamic environment applied to human stance control. Biol Cybern 84:103–115PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Krishnamoorthy V, Latash ML, Scholz JP, Zatsiorsky V (2003) Muscle synergies during shifts of the center of pressure by standing persons. Exp Brain Res 152:281–292PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Krishnamoorthy V, Latash ML, Scholz JP, Zatsiorsky V (2004) Muscle modes during shifts of the center of pressure by standing persons: effect of instability and additional support. Exp Brain Res 157:18–31PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Krisnamoorthy V, Yang J-F, Scholz JP (2005) Joint coordination during quiet stance: effects of vision. Exp Brain Res. online, 20 April 2005, doi: 10.1007/s00221-004-2205-6Google Scholar
  22. Kuo AD (1998) A least-square estimation approach to improving the precision of inverse dynamics computations. Trans ASME Bioeng 120:148–159Google Scholar
  23. Kuo AD, Zajac F (1993) Human standing posture: multi-joint movement strategies based on biomechanical constraints. Prog Brain Res 97:349–358PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Latash ML, Scholz JP, Schöner G (2002) Motor control strategies revealed in the structure of motor variability. Exerc Sport Sci Rev 30:26–31PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Maki BE, McIlroy WE (2005) Change-in-support balance reactions in older persons: an emerging research area of clinical importance. Neurol Clin 23:751–783PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Martin V, Scholz JP, Schöner G (2004) Theory of the uncontrolled manifold: variance, self-motion, and neuronal noise. Annual meeting for the society for neuroscience Program No. 871.17, San Diego, 23–27 October 2004Google Scholar
  27. Massion J (1992). Movement, posture and equilibrium: Interaction and coordination. Prog Neurobiol 38:35–56PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nashner LM, McCollum G (1985) The organization of human postural movements: a formal basis and experimental synthesis. Behav Brain Sci 8:135–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Park S, Horak FB, Kuo AD (2004) Postural feedback responses scale with biomechanical constraints in human standing. Exp Brain Res 154:417–427PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pedrocchia A, Baronia G, Mouchninoc L, Ferrignoa G, Pedottia A, Massion J (2002) Absence of center of mass control for leg abduction in long-term weightlessness in humans. Neurosci Lett 319:172–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Peterka RJ (2002) Sensorimotor integration in human postural control. J Neurophysiol 88:1097–118PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Raibert MH (1977) Motor control and learning by the state-space model. Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, MIT, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  33. Reisman D, Scholz JP, Schöner G (2002) Differential joint coordination in the tasks of standing up and sitting down. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 12:493–505PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Runge CF, Shupert CL, Horak FB, Zajak FE (1999) Ankle and hip postural strategies defined by joint torques. Gait Posture 10:161–170PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Scholz JP, Schöner G (1999). The uncontrolled manifold concept: identifying control variables for a functional task. Exp Brain Res 3:289–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Scholz JP, Schöner G, Latash ML (2000) Motor control of pistol shooting: identifying control variables with the uncontrolled manifold. Exp Brain Res 135(3):382–404PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Scholz JP, Reisman D, Schöner G (2001) Effects of varying task constraints on solutions to joint control in sit-to-stand. Exp Brain Res 141:485–500PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Scholz JP, Hsu W, Schöner G, Jeka J, Horak F (2004) Motor equivalent postural responses revealed by the UCM approach. Program No. 873.5. Abstract Viewer and itinerary planner. Washington, DC: Society for Neuroscience Online. 34th Annual meeting of the society for neuroscience, San Diego, 23–27 OctoberGoogle Scholar
  39. Schöner G (1995) Recent developments and problems in human movement science and their conceptual implications. Ecol Psychol 8:291–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tseng Y-W, Scholz JP, Schöner G (2002) Goal-equivalent joint coordination in pointing: affect of vision and arm dominance. Motor Control 6:183–204PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Todorov E (2004) Optimality principles in sensorimotor control. Nat Neurosci 7:907–915PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Winter DA (1990) Biomechanics and motor control of human movement, 2nd edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  43. Winter DA, Patla A, Prince F, Ishac M, Gielo-Perczak K (1998) Stiffness control of balance in quiet standing. J Neurophysiol 80:1211–1221PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. P. Scholz
    • 1
    • 2
  • G. Schöner
    • 3
  • W. L. Hsu
    • 2
  • J. J. Jeka
    • 4
  • F. Horak
    • 5
  • V. Martin
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Physical TherapyUniversity of DelawareNewarkUSA
  2. 2.Biomechanics and Movement Science ProgramUniversity of DelawareNewarkUSA
  3. 3.Institute für NeuroinformatikRuhr UniversityBochumGermany
  4. 4.Department of KinesiologyUniversity of MarylandCollege ParkUSA
  5. 5.Neurological Sciences Institute of Oregon Health and Science UniversityPortlandUSA

Personalised recommendations