Postural feedback responses scale with biomechanical constraints in human standing
- 1.1k Downloads
We tested whether human postural responses can be described in terms of feedback control gains, and whether these gains are scaled by the central nervous system to accommodate biomechanical constraints. A feedback control model can describe postural responses for a wide range of perturbations, but biomechanical constraints—such as on the torque that can be exerted on the ground—make a single set of feedback gains inappropriate for all perturbations. To observe how postural responses change with perturbation magnitude, we applied fast, backward perturbations of magnitudes 3–15 cm to 13 healthy young volunteers (4 men, 9 women, aged 20–32 years). We used a 3-segment, sagittal-plane biomechanical model and a linear state feedback controller to reproduce the observed postural responses. Optimization was used to identify the best-fit feedback control gains for each trial. Results showed that trajectories of joint angles and joint torques were scaled with perturbation magnitude. This scaling occurred gradually, rather than abruptly changing at magnitudes where biomechanical constraints became active. Feedback gains were found to fit reasonably well with data (R 2=0.92) and to be multivariate and heterogenic in character, meaning that the torque produced at any joint is generally a function of motions not only at the same joint, but other joints as well. Hip gains increased and ankle gains decreased nearly linearly with perturbation magnitude, in accordance with biomechanical limitations on ground reaction torque. These results indicate that postural adjustments can be described as a single feedback control scheme, with scalable heterogenic gains that are adjusted according to biomechanical constraints.
KeywordsBalance Equilibrium Posture Motor control Biomechanics
This work was supported in part by NIH grant R29DC0231201A1 and NIH grant R01AG06457. The authors thank C. L. Shupert for contributions to data collection.
- Horak FB, Kuo AD (2000) Postural adaptation for altered environments, tasks, and intentions. In: Winters J, Crago P (eds) Biomechanics and neural control of movement, Chapt 19. Springer, New York, pp 267–281Google Scholar
- Horak FB, Macpherson JM (1996) Postural orientation and equilibrium. In: Shepard J, Rowell L (eds) Exercise: Regulation and Integration of Multiple Systems. (Handbook of physiology, Sect 12) Oxford University Press, New York, pp 255–292Google Scholar
- Horak FB, Nashner LM (1986) Central programming of postural movements: adaptation to altered support-surface configurations. J Neurophysiol 55:1369–1381Google Scholar
- Kuo AD (1998) A least-square estimation approach to imporving the precision of inverse dynamics computations. Trans ASME Bioeng 120:148–159Google Scholar
- Maki BE, Ostrovski G (1993) Scaling of postural responses to transient and continuous perturbations. Gait Posture 1:93–104Google Scholar
- Nashner LM, McCollum G (1985) The organization of human postural movements: a formal basis and experimental synthesis. Behav Brain Sci 8:135–172Google Scholar
- Nauck D, Klawonn F, Kruse R (1997) Foundations of neuro-fuzzy systems. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
- Schmidt RA, Lee TD (1999) Motor control and learning, 3rd edn. Human Kinetics, Champaign, ILGoogle Scholar
- Shittowski K (1985) NLQPL: A FORTRAN-subroutine solving constrained nonlinear programming problems. Ann Op Res 5:485–500Google Scholar