Intermittent tapping control

Gawthrop, P.J.; Gollee, H.

doi:10.1177/0959651812450114

Cited by 5 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Evidence from sustained manual control of an external single degree of freedom system (Loram et al, 2012; van de Kamp et al, 2013) showed that it is unlikely that the entire sensory-motor pipeline is implemented in parallel as a continuous linear time invariant process. Rather the evidence is highly consistent with a limiting serial process along a single channel which is expressed formally in the intermittent control paradigm illustrated in Figure 1 (Gawthrop and Wang, 2011; Gawthrop et al, 2011; Gawthrop and Gollee, 2012; Loram et al, 2012). The hypothesis of a limiting serial, single channel process is supported by extensive studies in Psychology showing refractoriness in double stimulus experiments.…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 60%

“…If RT2 were linearly related to ISI with a gradient of −1, then as clearly articulated by Pashler and Johnston (1998) that would be consistent with a serial process along a single channel in which a second process cannot start until a first process has completed. Within a control system, this idea is represented within an intermittent control paradigm in which feedback cannot be applied until a minimum open loop interval has elapsed (Figure 1) (Gawthrop and Wang, 2009, 2011; Gawthrop et al, 2011; Gawthrop and Gollee, 2012; Loram et al, 2012). The minimum open loop interval, or intermittent interval as it is called, is an implementation of the single channel PRP as expressed by Craik (Vince, 1948) and Pashler (Pashler et al, 1998).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Interfacing sensory input with motor output: does the control architecture converge to a serial process along a single channel?

Kamp¹,

Gawthrop²,

Gollee³

et al. 2013

Front. Comput. Neurosci.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Modular organization in control architecture may underlie the versatility of human motor control; but the nature of the interface relating sensory input through task-selection in the space of performance variables to control actions in the space of the elemental variables is currently unknown. Our central question is whether the control architecture converges to a serial process along a single channel? In discrete reaction time experiments, psychologists have firmly associated a serial single channel hypothesis with refractoriness and response selection [psychological refractory period (PRP)]. Recently, we developed a methodology and evidence identifying refractoriness in sustained control of an external single degree-of-freedom system. We hypothesize that multi-segmental whole-body control also shows refractoriness. Eight participants controlled their whole body to ensure a head marker tracked a target as fast and accurately as possible. Analysis showed enhanced delays in response to stimuli with close temporal proximity to the preceding stimulus. Consistent with our preceding work, this evidence is incompatible with control as a linear time invariant process. This evidence is consistent with a single-channel serial ballistic process within the intermittent control paradigm with an intermittent interval of around 0.5 s. A control architecture reproducing intentional human movement control must reproduce refractoriness. Intermittent control is designed to provide computational time for an online optimization process and is appropriate for flexible adaptive control. For human motor control we suggest that parallel sensory input converges to a serial, single channel process involving planning, selection, and temporal inhibition of alternative responses prior to low dimensional motor output. Such design could aid robots to reproduce the flexibility of human control.

show abstract

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 60%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interfacing sensory input with motor output: does the control architecture converge to a serial process along a single channel?

Kamp¹,

Gawthrop²,

Gollee³

et al. 2013

Front. Comput. Neurosci.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The hold state h replaces the predictor state p in the controller equation. Other holds (where A h ~= A c ) are possible [27]. Figure 1.…”

Section: Controlmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intermittent control of unstable multivariate systems

Loram

Gawthrop

Gollee

2015

2015 37th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A sensorimotor architecture inspired from biological, vertebrate control should (i) explain the interface between high dimensional sensory analysis, low dimensional goals and high dimensional motor mechanisms and (ii) provide both stability and flexibility. Our interest concerns whether single-input-single-output intermittent control (SISO_IC) generalized to multivariable intermittent control (MIC) can meet these requirements.We base MIC on the continuous-time observer-predictorstate-feedback architecture. MIC uses event detection. A system matched hold (SMH), using the underlying continuoustime optimal control design, generates multivariate open-loop control signals between samples of the predicted state. Combined, this serial process provides a single-channel of control with optimised sensor fusion and motor synergies. Quadratic programming provides constrained, optimised equilibrium control design to handle unphysical configurations, redundancy and provides minimum, necessary reduction of open loop instability through optimised joint impedance. In this multivariate form, dimensionality is linked to goals rather than neuromuscular or sensory degrees of freedom. The biological and engineering rationale for intermittent rather than continuous multivariate control, is that the generalised hold sustains open loop predictive control while the open loop interval provides time within the feedback loop for online centralised, state dependent optimisation and selection.

show abstract

“…These system parameters will be estimated in order to update the corresponding controller in the redesign stage. For this system, the statevector is defined in equation (47), which needs to be augmented by the system parameters to obtain the form given by equation (24). The arm and pendulum angles are the outputs of the system and can be defined in vector form as y(t) = ½ u a T .…”

Section: Augmented Rotational Pendulum Model For Parameter Estimationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Alternative versions are also possible, such as the tapping hold. 24 At the start of each intermittent interval, t = t i , the hold states are reset to the predicted state…”

Section: The System-matched Holdmentioning

confidence: 99%

Event-driven adaptive intermittent control applied to a rotational pendulum

Martin

Gollee

Gawthrop

2023

Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part I:

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Intermittent control combines open-loop trajectories with feedback at discrete time instances determined by events. Among other applications, it has recently been used to model quiet standing in humans where the system was assumed to be time-invariant. This article expands this work to the time-variant case by introducing an adaptive intermittent controller that exploits the well-known self-tuning architecture of adaptive control with a Kalman filter to perform online state and parameter estimation. Simulation and experimental results using a rotational inverted pendulum show advantages of the intermittent controllers compared to continuous feedback control since the former can provide persistent excitation due to their internal triggering mechanism, even when no external reference changes or disturbances are applied. Moreover, the results show that the event thresholds of intermittent control can be used to adjust the degree of responsiveness of the adaptation in the system, becoming a tool to balance the trade-off between steady-state performance and flexibility against parametric changes, addressing the stability–plasticity dilemma of adaptation and learning in control.

show abstract

Intermittent tapping control

Cited by 5 publications

References 31 publications

Interfacing sensory input with motor output: does the control architecture converge to a serial process along a single channel?

Interfacing sensory input with motor output: does the control architecture converge to a serial process along a single channel?

Intermittent control of unstable multivariate systems

Event-driven adaptive intermittent control applied to a rotational pendulum

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About