HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 97/3/2439    most recent 00164.2006v1 Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Ahmed, A. A. Articles by Ashton-Miller, J. A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Ahmed, A. A. Articles by Ashton-Miller, J. A.

On Use of a Nominal Internal Model to Detect a Loss of Balance in a Maximal Forward Reach

Biomechanics Research Laboratory, ¹Departments of Biomedical and ²Mechanical Engineering and ³Institute of Gerontology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan

Submitted 15 February 2006; accepted in final form 17 January 2007

We hypothesize that the CNS detects a loss of balance by comparing outputs predicted by a nominal, forward internal model with actual sensory outputs. When the resulting control error signal reaches an anomalously large value, this control error anomaly (CEA) signals a loss of balance and precedes any observable compensatory response. To test this hypothesis, a multi-input, multi-output internal model of a standing forward reach task was developed that incorporated on-line model identification and a Gaussian failure detection algorithm. Eleven healthy young women were then asked to stand and reach forward to a target positioned from 95 to 125% of their maximum reach distance. Kinematic and kinetic data were recorded at 100 Hz unilaterally from the upper body, leg, and foot. Evidence of successful CEA detection was a compensatory step between 100 ms and 2 s later. The results show that use of a threshold, set at 3 SD from the mean, on error in the control of leg segment acceleration detected a CEA and correctly predicted a compensatory response in 92.6% of 108 trials. Leg acceleration control error was a better predictor than upper body or foot acceleration control error (P = 0.000). CEA detection performed more reliably than loss of balance detection algorithms based on kinematic thresholds (P = 0.000). The results support the hypothesis that a loss of balance may be identified via the use of a nominal forward internal model and probabilistic error monitoring.