Is Intermittent Control the Source of the Non-Linear Oscillatory Component (0.2–2Hz) in Human Balance Control?

摘要

<italic xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">Objective:</i> To explain the 0.2–2Hz oscillation in human balance. <italic xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">Motivation:</i> 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). <italic xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">Methods:</i> 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. <italic xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">Results</i> (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 (f <sub xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">res</sub> ), not limit cycles, nor sampling rate. NPC (0.36±0.08Hz) and PC (0.86±0.4Hz) showed f <sub xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">res</sub> significantly lower than IPC (0.98±0.2Hz). <italic xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">Conclusion:</i> Human balance control requires short-term prediction. <italic xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">Significance:</i> IPC mechanisms (prediction error, threshold related sampling, sequential re-initialization of open-loop predictive control) explain resonant gain without uncontrolled oscillation for healthy balance.