Abstract
There are two issues in balancing a stick pivoting on a finger tip (or mechanically on a moving cart): maintaining the stick angle near to vertical and maintaining the horizontal position within the bounds of reach or cart track. The (linearised) dynamics of the angle are second order (although driven by pivot acceleration), and so, as in human standing, control of the angle is not, by itself very difficult. However, once the angle is under control, the position dynamics are, in general, fourth order. This makes control quite difficult for humans (and even an engineering control system requires careful design). Recently, three of the authors have experimentally demonstrated that humans control the stick angle in a special way: the closed-loop inverted pendulum behaves as a non-inverted pendulum with a virtual pivot somewhere between the stick centre and tip and with increased gravity. Moreover, they suggest that the virtual pivot lies at the radius of gyration (about the mass centre) above the mass centre. This paper gives a continuous-time control-theoretical interpretation of the virtual-pendulum approach. In particular, by using a novel cascade control structure, it is shown that the horizontal control of the virtual pivot becomes a second-order problem which is much easier to solve than the generic fourth-order problem. Hence, the use of the virtual pivot approach allows the control problem to be perceived by the subject as two separate second-order problems rather than a single fourth-order problem, and the control problem is therefore simplified. The theoretical predictions are verified using the data previously presented by three of the authors and analysed using a standard parameter estimation method. The experimental data indicate that although all subjects adopt the virtual pivot approach, the less expert subjects exhibit larger amplitude angular motion and poorly controlled translational motion. It is known that human control systems are delayed and intermittent, and therefore, the continuous-time strategy cannot be correct. However, the model of intermittent control used in this paper is based on the virtual pivot continuous-time control scheme, handles time delays and moreover masquerades as the underlying continuous-time controller. In addition, the event-driven properties of intermittent control can explain experimentally observed variability.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The equivalent length \(L_p\) is also the distance from the pivot to the centre of percussion.
This corresponds to Lee et al. (2012), Equation (13), where \(k = k_\theta +1\) and \(d=\theta _0=0\).
As discussed by, for example, Kasdin (1995), there are a number of approaches to the simulation of random processes. As discussed by, for example, Dobrowiecki and Schoukens (2001) and Pintelon and Schoukens (2001), the random multisine is a well-established method for simulating band-limited random processes with clearly defined properties. The random multisine has been used previously in the intermittent control context (Gollee et al. 2012).
In this context, mediolateral corresponds to left–right motion and anteroposterior to forward–backward motion.
References
Asai Y, Tasaka Y, Nomura K, Nomura T, Casadio M, Morasso P (2009) A model of postural control in quiet standing: robust compensation of delay-induced instability using intermittent activation of feedback control. PLoS ONE 4(7):e6169
Astrom KJ, Furuta K (2000) Swinging up a pendulum by energy control. Automatica 36(2):287–295
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(4):588–615
Bottaro A, Yasutake Y, Nomura T, Casadio M, Morasso P (2008) Bounded stability of the quiet standing posture: an intermittent control model. Hum Mov Sci 27(3):473–495
Boubaker O (2012) The inverted pendulum: a fundamental benchmark in control theory and robotics. In: Education and e-Learning Innovations (ICEELI), 2012 international conference on, pp 1–6, July 2012
Cabrera JL, Milton JG (2002) On-off intermittency in a human balancing task. Phys. Rev. Lett. 89(15):158702
Craik KJ (1947) Theory of human operators in control systems: part 1, the operator as an engineering system. British J Psychol 38:56–61
Dobrowiecki TP, Schoukens J (2001) Practical choices in the FRF measurement in presence of nonlinear distortions. Instrum Meas IEEE Trans 50(1):2–7
Fantoni I, Lozano R (2002) Stabilization of the Furuta pendulum around its homoclinic orbit. Int J Control 75(6):390–398
Fitzpatrick R, McCloskey DI (1994) Proprioceptive, visual and vestibular thresholds for the perception of sway during standing in humans. J Physiol 478(Pt 1):173–186
Garnier H, Mensler M, Richard A (2003) Continuous-time model identification from sampled data: implementation issues and performance evaluation. Int J Control 76(13):1337–1357
Garnier H, Wang L (eds) (2008) Identification of continuous-time models from sampled data. Advances in industrial control. Springer, London
Gawthrop P, Loram I, Lakie M (2009a) Predictive feedback in human simulated pendulum balancing. Biol Cybern 101(2):131–146
Gawthrop P, Loram I, Lakie M, Gollee H (2011) Intermittent control: a computational theory of human control. Biol Cybern 104(1–2):31–51
Gawthrop PJ (2009) Frequency domain analysis of intermittent control. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Pt. I: J Syst Control Eng 223(5):591–603
Gawthrop PJ, Lakie MD, Loram ID (2008) Predictive feedback control and Fitts’ law. Biol Cybern 98(3):229–238
Gawthrop PJ, Wagg DJ, Neild SA (2009b) Bond graph based control and substructuring. Simul Model Pract Theory 17(1):211–227
Gollee H, Mamma A, Loram ID, Gawthrop PJ (2012) Frequency-domain identification of the human controller. Biol Cybern 106:359372
Goodwin GC, Graebe SF, Salgado ME (2001) Control system design. Prentice Hall, New Jersey
Insperger T, Milton J, Stepan G (2013) Acceleration feedback improves balancing against reflex delay. J R Soc Interface 10(79)
Johansson R (1994) Identification of continuous-time models. Signal Process IEEE Trans 42(4):887–897
Karniel A (2011) Open questions in computational motor control. J Integr Neurosci 10(3):385–411
Kasdin NJ (1995) Discrete simulation of colored noise and stochastic processes and 1/f alpha; power law noise generation. Proc IEEE 83(5):802–827
Kleinman D, Baron S, Levison W (1971) A control theoretic approach to manned-vehicle systems analysis. Autom Control IEEE Trans 16(6):824–832
Kleinman DL, Baron S, Levison WH (1970) An optimal control model of human response part I: theory and validation. Automatica 6:357–369
Kowalczyk P, Glendinning P, Brown M, Medrano-Cerda G, Dallali H, Jonathan S (2011) Modelling human balance using switched systems with linear feedback control, J R Soc Interface 9(67):234–245
Kwakernaak H, Sivan R (1972) Linear optimal control systems. Wiley, New York
Lee K-Y, ODwyer N, Halaki M, Smith R (2012) A new paradigm for human stick balancing: a suspended not an inverted pendulum. Exp Brain Res 221(3):309–328
Ljung L (1999) System identification: theory for the user. Information and systems science, 2nd edn. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ
Loram D, Lakie M (2002) Human balancing of an inverted pendulum: position control by small, ballistic-like, throw and catch movements. J Physiol 540(3):1111–1124
Loram ID, Lakie M, Gawthrop PJ (2009) Visual control of stable and unstable loads: what is the feedback delay and extent of linear time-invariant control? J Physiol 587(6):1343–1365
Loram ID, van de Kamp C, Gollee H, Gawthrop PJ (2012) Identification of intermittent control in man and machine. J R Soc Interface 9(74):2070–2084
Marr D, Vision A (1982) Computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information. W.H. Freeman, San Francisco. ISBN 0716712849
Mehta B, Schaal S (2002) Forward models in visuomotor control. J Neurophysiol 88(2):942–953
Milton JG, Cabrera JL, Ohira T (2008) Unstable dynamical systems: delays, noise and control. EPL (Europhys Lett) 83(4):48001
Milton JG (2011) The delayed and noisy nervous system: implications for neural control. J Neural Eng 8(6):065005
Milton JG, Ohira T, Cabrera JL, Fraiser RM, Gyorffy JB, Ruiz Ferrin K, Strauss MA, Balch EC, Marin PJ, Alexander JL (2009) Balancing with vibration: a prelude for drift and act balance control. PLoS ONE 4(10):e7427
Navas F, Stark L (1968) Sampling or intermittency in hand control system dynamics. Biophys J 8(2):252–302
Neilson PD, Neilson MD, O’Dwyer NJ (1988) Internal models and intermittency: a theoretical account of human tracking behaviour. Biol Cybern 58:101–112
Nijhawan R, Wu S (2009) Compensating time delays with neural predictions: are predictions sensory or motor? Philos Trans R Soc A Math Phys Eng Sci 367(1891):1063–1078
Oytam Y, Neilson PD, O’Dwyer NJ (2005) Degrees of freedom and motor planning in purposive movement. Hum Mov Sci 24(5–6):710–730
Pintelon R, Schoukens J (2001) System identification: a frequency domain approach. IEEE press, New York City
Rao GP, Unbehauen H (2006) Identification of continuous-time systems. Control Theory Appl 153(2):185–220
Scholl E, Hiller G, Hovel P, Dahlem MA (2009) Time-delayed feedback in neurosystems. Philos Trans R Soc A Math Phys Eng Sci 367(1891):1079–1096
Shadmehr R, Wise SP (2005) Computational neurobiology of reaching and pointing: a foundation for motor learning. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
Smith MC (March 1967) Theories of the psychological refractory period. Psychol Bull 67(3):202–213
Stepan G (2009) Delay effects in the human sensory system during balancing. Philos Trans R Soc A Math Phys Eng Sci 367(1891):1195–1212
Suzuki Y, Nomura T, Casadio M, Morasso P (2012) Intermittent control with ankle, hip, and mixed strategies during quiet standing: a theoretical proposal based on a double inverted pendulum model. J Theor Biol 310:55–79
Telford CW (1931) The refractory phase of voluntary and associative responses. J Exp Psychol 14(1):1–36
Todorov E, Jordan MI (2002) Optimal feedback control as a theory of motor coordination. Nat Neurosci 5(11):1226–1235
Unbehauen H, Rao GP (1990) Continuous-time approaches to system identification a survey. Automatica 26(1):23–35
van de Kamp C, Gawthrop PJ, Gollee H, Loram ID (2013) Refractoriness in sustained visuo-manual control: is the refractory duration intrinsic or does it depend on external system properties? PLoS Comput Biol 9(1):e1002843
Vince MA (1948) The intermittency of control movements and the psychological refractory period. British J Psychol 38:149–157
Volkinshtein D, Meir R (2011) Delayed feedback control requires an internal forward model. Biol Cybern 105:41–53. ISSN 0340–1200
Young PC (1965) The determination of the parameters of a dynamic process. Radio Electron Eng 29:345–361
Young P (1981) Parameter estimation for continuous-time models: a survey. Automatica 17(1):23–39
Young PC (2011) Recursive estimation and time-series analysis: an introduction for the student and practitioner. Springer, Berlin
Acknowledgments
The work reported here is related to the linked EPSRC Grants EP/F068514/1, EP/F069022/1 and EP/F06974X/1 “Intermittent control of man and machine”. Peter Gawthrop was supported by the NICTA Victoria Research Laboratory at the University of Melbourne and is now a Professorial Fellow within the Melbourne School of Engineering; he would also like to acknowledge the many discussions about intermittent control with Ian Loram, Martin Lakie, Henrik Gollee and Liuping Wang. The authors would like to thank the reviewers for their helpful comments on the draft manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Gawthrop, P., Lee, KY., Halaki, M. et al. Human stick balancing: an intermittent control explanation. Biol Cybern 107, 637–652 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00422-013-0564-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00422-013-0564-4