Abstract
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.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Adkin AL, Frank JS, Carpenter MG, Peysar GW (2000) Postural control is scaled to level of postural threat. Gait Posture 12:87–93
Allum JH, Honegger F (1998) Interactions between vestibular and proprioceptive inputs triggering and modulating human balance-correcting responses differ across muscles. Exp Brain Res 121:478–494
Barin K (1989) Evaluation of a generalized model of human postural dynamics and control in the sagittal plane. Biol Cybern 61:37–50
Bonasera SJ, Nichols TR (1994) Mechanical actions of heterogenic reflexes linking long toe flexors with ankle and knee extensors of the cat hindlimb. J Neurophysiol 71:1096–1110
Burleigh AL, Horak FB, Malouin F (1994) Modification of postural responses and step initiation: evidence for goal-directed postural interactions. J Neurophysiol 72:2892–2902
Diener HC, Horak FB, Nashner LM (1988) Influence of stimulus parameters on human postural responses. J Neurophysiol 59:1888–1905
Dietz V (1993) Gating of reflexes in ankle muscles during human stance and gait. Prog Brain Res 97:181–188
Henry SM, Fung J, Horak FB (1998) EMG responses to maintain stance during multidirectional surface translations. J Neurophysiol 80:1939–1950
Holstege G (1998) The anatomy of the central control of posture: consistency and plasticity. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 22:485–493
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 267–281
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 255–292
Horak FB, Nashner LM (1986) Central programming of postural movements: adaptation to altered support-surface configurations. J Neurophysiol 55:1369–1381
Horak FB, Diener HC, Nashner LM (1989) Influence of central set on human postural responses. J Neurophysiol 62:841–853
Horak FB, Nutt JG, Nashner LM (1992) Postural inflexibility in parkinsonian subjects. J Neurol Sci 111:46–58
Horak FB, Frank J, Nutt J (1996) Effects of dopamine on postural control in Parkinsonian subjects: scaling, set and tone. J Neurophysiol 75:2380–2396
Hughes MA, Schenkman ML, Chandler JM, Studenski SA (1995) Postural responses to platform perturbation: kinematics and electromyography. Clin Biomech 10:318–322
Kolb FP, Lachauer S, Diener HC, Timmann D (2001) Changes in conditioned postural responses. Comparison between cerebellar patients and healthy subjects. Acta Physiol Pharmacol Bulg 26:143–146
Kuo AD (1995) An optimal control model for analyzing human postural balance. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 42:87–101
Kuo AD (1998) A least-square estimation approach to imporving the precision of inverse dynamics computations. Trans ASME Bioeng 120:148–159
Kuo AD, Zajac FE (1993) A biomechanical analysis of muscle strength as a limiting factor in standing posture. J Biomech 26:137–150
Kuo AD, Speers RA, Peterka RJ, Horak FB (1998) Effect of altered sensory conditions on multivariate descriptors of human postural sway. Exp Brain Res 122:185–195
Maki BE, Ostrovski G (1993) Scaling of postural responses to transient and continuous perturbations. Gait Posture 1:93–104
Nashner LM (1976) Adapting reflexes controlling the human posture. Exp Brain Res 26:59–72
Nashner LM, Cordo PJ (1981) Relation of automatic postural responses and reaction-time voluntary movements of human leg muscles. Exp Brain Res 43:395–405
Nashner LM, McCollum G (1985) The organization of human postural movements: a formal basis and experimental synthesis. Behav Brain Sci 8:135–172
Nauck D, Klawonn F, Kruse R (1997) Foundations of neuro-fuzzy systems. Wiley, Chichester
Runge CF, Shupert CL, Horak FB, Zajac FE (1999) Ankle and hip postural strategies defined by joint torques. Gait Posture 10:161–170
Schmidt RA, Lee TD (1999) Motor control and learning, 3rd edn. Human Kinetics, Champaign, IL
Shittowski K (1985) NLQPL: A FORTRAN-subroutine solving constrained nonlinear programming problems. Ann Op Res 5:485–500
Sinha T, Maki BE (1996) Effect of forward lean on postural ankle dynamics. IEEE Trans Rehabil Eng 4:348–359
Speers RA, Paloski WH, Kuo AD (1998) Multivariate changes in coordination of postural control following spaceflight. J Biomech 31:883–889
Timmann D, Horak FB (1998) Perturbed step initiation in cerebellar subjects. 1. Modifications of postural responses. Exp Brain Res 119:73–84
Yeadon MR, Morlock M (1989) The appropriate use of regression equations for the estimation of segmental inertia parameters. J Biomech 22:683–689
Zettel JL, McIlroy WE, Maki BE (2002) Can stabilizing features of rapid triggered stepping reactions be modulated to meet environmental constraints? Exp Brain Res 145:297–308
Acknowledgements
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix
Appendix
Biomechanical model and optimization of feedback parameters
The model’s equations of motion are of the form (Kuo and Zajac 1993):
where θ is a vector of joint angles, M is the mass matrix, V is a vector of velocity-dependent terms, G is a vector of gravity-dependent terms, T is a vector of joint torques, and W is a vector dependent on external perturbation magnitude a. The inertial parameters for the models were found by incorporating a series of 27 anthropometric measurements into a nonlinear regression model of the body segments (Yeadon and Morlock 1989). We used Eq. 1 in inverse dynamics computations to estimate joint torques (Kuo 1998), and also in the feedback control model (Fig. 2). We also developed a 4-segment model, including knee motion, to quantify the advantages of a more complex model (see Discussion).
These equations of motion were incorporated in a feedback control model of postural responses to perturbations of the support surface. We used a linear state feedback control (Barin 1989; Kuo 1995), producing joint torques as a function of the joint angles and velocities to stabilize the body (see Fig. 2). We assumed that the CNS can either directly sense or indirectly estimate the equivalent of the state information \(x = {\left[ {\theta _{{{\text{ank}}}} \;\theta _{{{\text{hip}}}} \;\dot{\theta }_{{{\text{ank}}}} \;\dot{\theta }_{{{\text{hip}}}} } \right]}^{T} \). The control task was to produce joint torques \( u{\mathop = \limits^\delta }T \) with the feedback law:
where K is the (2×4) feedback control gain matrix, and x ref is the state corresponding to the upright reference position. The state equations, linearized about the upright vertical position, are of the form:
where A, and B are system matrices, and w describes perturbation. Combining Eqs. 2 and 3 yields the closed-loop system:
whose stability depends on the quantity (A--BK). For a given subject, A and B are relatively fixed, and the gain (K) is selected by the CNS. The selection of K effectively determines the postural response strategy. The movement resulting from a perturbation can be predicted from initial conditions and the perturbation magnitude (w), resulting in simulated state and torque trajectories over time, x sim and u sim, respectively.
We used optimization to describe the postural response strategy in terms of the feedback parameters. The objective was to minimize the sum-squared, normalized deviations of the model states x sim from the experimental data x exp and the model torques u sim from the data u exp:
where \( \delta {\text{x}}{\mathop = \limits^\Delta }{\left( {x_{{\exp }} - x_{{{\text{sim}}}} } \right)}/{\left| {x_{{\exp }} } \right|},\;\delta {\text{u}}{\mathop = \limits^\Delta }{\left( {u_{{\exp }} - u_{{{\text{sim}}}} } \right)}/{\left| {u_{{\exp }} } \right|} \) and the summation occurs over samples of recorded data. The Q matrix was used to weight the relative contributions of errors in state and control, and was chosen to be Q=0.01I 4×4 where I is the identity matrix. This places equal weighting on all states relative to each other, with the overall scaling factor of 0.01 chosen to place some weighting on matching experimentally-derived joint torques. One constraint was placed on the optimization, requiring a stable closed-loop system, i.e., eigenvalues of the system matrix having nonpositive real parts. Therefore, the constrained optimization problem is written mathematically as follows:
To perform the optimization, we used a sequential quadratic programming (SQP) algorithm, one of many algorithms that can minimize a quadratic objective subject to nonlinear constraints (Shittowski 1985). We repeated the optimization multiple times using random initial guesses for K, to check for local minima in the optimization. As a measure of the degree of fit, we calculated R 2 for each fit using the same relative weightings of Eq. 5.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Park, S., Horak, F.B. & Kuo, A.D. Postural feedback responses scale with biomechanical constraints in human standing. Exp Brain Res 154, 417–427 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-003-1674-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-003-1674-3