Advertisement

Biological Cybernetics

, 101:35 | Cite as

Optimal motor control may mask sensory dynamics

  • Sean G. Carver
  • Tim Kiemel
  • Noah J. Cowan
  • John J. Jeka
Original Paper

Abstract

Properties of neural controllers for closed-loop sensorimotor behavior can be inferred with system identification. Under the standard paradigm, the closed-loop system is perturbed (input), measurements are taken (output), and the relationship between input and output reveals features of the system under study. Here we show that under common assumptions made about such systems (e.g. the system implements optimal control with a penalty on mechanical, but not sensory, states) important aspects of the neural controller (its zeros mask the modes of the sensors) remain hidden from standard system identification techniques. Only by perturbing or measuring the closed-loop system “between” the sensor and the control can these features be exposed with closed-loop system identification methods; while uncommon, there exist noninvasive techniques such as galvanic vestibular stimulation that perturb between sensor and controller in this way.

Keywords

Closed-loop system identification Optimal motor control Sensory dynamics Pole-zero cancellation 

References

  1. Allum JH, Zamani F, Adkin AL, Ernst A (2002) Differences between trunk sway characteristics on a foam support surface and on the equitest ankle-sway-referenced support surface. Gait Posture 16(3): 264–270PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Balint CN, Dickinson MH (2004) Neuromuscular control of aerodynamic forces and moments in the blowfly, calliphora vicina. J Exp Biol 207(22): 3813–3838PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bhushan N, Shadmehr R (1999) Computational nature of human adaptive control during learning of reaching movements in force fields. Biol Cybern 81(1): 39–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boeddeker N, Egelhaaf M (2005) A single control system for smooth and saccade-like pursuit in blowflies. J Exp Biol 208(Pt 8): 1563–1572. doi: 10.1242/jeb.01558 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bryson AE, Ho Y (1975) Applied optimal control: optimization, estimation, and control. Taylor and Francis, LondonGoogle Scholar
  6. Camhi JM, Johnson EN (1999) High-frequency steering maneuvers mediated by tactile cues: antenna wall-following in the cockroach. J Exp Biol 202: 631–643PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Carver S, Kiemel T, van der Kooij H, Jeka JJ (2005) Comparing internal models of the dynamics of the visual environment. Biol Cybern 92(3): 147–163. doi: 10.1007/s00422-004-0535-x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cowan NJ, Fortune ES (2007) The critical role of locomotion mechanics in decoding sensory systems. J Neurosci 27(5): 1123–1128PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cowan NJ, Lee J, Full RJ (2006) Task-level control of rapid wall following in the American cockroach. J Exp Biol 209(9): 1617–1629PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fitzpatrick R, Burke D, Gandevia SC (1996) Loop gain of reflexes controlling human standing measured with the use of postural and vestibular disturbances. J Neurophysiol 76(6): 3994–4008PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Frye M (2001) Effects of stretch receptor ablation on the optomotor control of lift in the hawkmoth Manduca sexta. J Exp Biol 204: 3683–3691PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Heisenberg M, Wolf R (1988) Reafferent control of optomotor yaw torque in drosophila melanogaster. J Comp Physiol A 163(3): 373–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Horak FB, Macpherson JM (1996) Postural orientation and equilibrium. In: Rowell LB, Shepherd JT (eds) Handbook of physiology section 12: exercise regulation and integration of multiple systems. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 255–292Google Scholar
  14. Jindrich DL, Full RJ (2002) Dynamic stabilization of rapid hexapedal locomotion. J Exp Biol 205(18): 2803–2823PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Kalb J, Egelhaaf M, Kurtz R (2006) Robust integration of motion information in the fly visual system revealed by single cell photoablation. J Neurosci 26(30): 7898–7906. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1327-06.2006 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kiemel T, Oie KS, Jeka JJ (2002) Multisensory fusion and the stochastic structure of postural sway. Biol Cybern 87(4): 262–277. doi: 10.1007/s00422-002-0333-2 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kuo AD (1995) An optimal control model for analyzing human postural balance. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 42(1): 87–101PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kuo AD (2005) An optimal state estimation model of sensory integration in human postural balance. J Neural Eng 2(3): S235–S249. doi: 10.1088/1741-2560/2/3/S07 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lee J, Sponberg SN, Loh OY, Lamperski AG, Full RJ, Cowan NJ (2008) Templates and anchors for antenna-based wall following in cockroaches and robots. IEEE Trans Robot 24(1): 130–143. doi: 10.1109/TRO.2007.913981 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Levine WS (ed) (1996) Multivariable poles, zeros, and pole-zero cancellations. In: The control handbook. CRC Press, West Palm BeachGoogle Scholar
  21. Lockhart DB, Ting LH (2007) Optimal sensorimotor transformations for balance. Nat Neurosci 10(10): 1329–1336. doi: 10.1038/nn1986 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mergner T (2002) The matryoshka dolls principle in human dynamic behavior in space: a theory of linked references for multisensory perception and control of action. Curr Psychol Cogn 21(2–3): 129–212Google Scholar
  23. Nashner LM (1981) Analysis of stance in humans. In: Towe A, Luschei E (eds) Handbook of behavioural neuroscience: motor coordination, vol 5. Plenum, New York, pp 527–555Google Scholar
  24. Nashner LM, Black FO, Wall C (1982) Adaptation to altered support and visual conditions during stance: patients with vestibular deficits. J Neurosci 2(5): 536–544PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Oie KS, Kiemel T, Jeka JJ (2002) Multisensory fusion: simultaneous re-weighting of vision and touch for the control of human posture. Brain Res Cogn Brain Res 14(1): 164–176PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ramcharitar J, Tan E, Fortune E (2006) Global electrosensory oscillations enhance directional responses of midbrain neurons in Eigenmannia. J Neurophysiol 96(5): 2319–2326PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ravaioli E, Oie KS, Kiemel T, Chiari L, Jeka JJ (2005) Nonlinear postural control in response to visual translation. Exp Brain Res 160(4): 450–459. doi: 10.1007/s00221-004-2030-y PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rose GJ, Canfield JG (1993) Longitudinal tracking responses of Eigenmannia and Sternopygus. J Comp Physiol A 173: 698–700Google Scholar
  29. Si A, Srinivasan M, Zhang SW (2003) Honeybee navigation: properties of the visually driven ‘odometer’. J Exp Biol 206(8): 1265–1273PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sponberg S, Libby T, Full RJ (2008) Rewriting the motor code to a muscle in a running insect alters function from energy absorption to production. In: The Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology, San Antonio, TXGoogle Scholar
  31. Sprayberry JDH, Daniel TL (2007) Flower tracking in hawkmoths: behavior and energetics. J Exp Biol 210(Pt 1): 37–45. doi: 10.1242/jeb.02616 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Srinivasan MV, Lehrer M, Kirchner WH, Zhang SW (1991) Range perception through apparent image speed in freely flying honeybees. Vis Neurosci 6(5): 519–535PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Srinivasan MV, Chahl JS, Weber K, Venkatesh S, Nagle MG, Zhang SW (1999) Robot navigation inspired by principles of insect vision. Robot Auton Syst 26: 203–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ting LH, Macpherson JM (2005) A limited set of muscle synergies for force control during a postural task. J Neurophysiol 93(1): 609–613. doi: 10.1152/jn.00681.2004 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Todorov E, Jordan MI (2002) Optimal feedback control as a theory of motor coordination. Nat Neurosci 5: 1226–1235. doi: 10.1038/nn963 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. van Soest AJK, Rozendaal LA (2008) The inverted pendulum model of bipedal standing cannot be stabilized through direct feedback of force and contractile element length and velocity at realistic series elastic element stiffness. Biol Cybern 99(1): 29–41. doi: 10.1007/s00422-008-0240-2 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. van der Helm FC, Schouten AC, de Vlugt E, Brown GG (2002) Identification of intrinsic and reflexive components of human arm dynmics during postural control. J Neurosci Methods 119: 1–14PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. van der Kooij H, Jacobs R, Koopman B, Grootenboer H (1999) A multisensory integration model of human stance control. Biol Cybern 80(5): 299–308PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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(2): 103–115PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. van der Kooij H, van Asseldonk E, van der Helm FCT (2005) Comparison of different methods to identify and quantify balance control. J Neurosci Methods 145(1-2): 175–203. doi: 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2005.01.003 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wilson VJ, Melvill Jones G (1979) Mammalian vestibular physiology. Plenum Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sean G. Carver
    • 1
  • Tim Kiemel
    • 2
  • Noah J. Cowan
    • 3
  • John J. Jeka
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Psychological and Brain SciencesThe Johns Hopkins UniversityBaltimoreUSA
  2. 2.Department of Kinesiology, School of Public Health BuildingThe University of MarylandCollege ParkUSA
  3. 3.Department of Mechanical EngineeringThe Johns Hopkins UniversityBaltimoreUSA

Personalised recommendations