JN Miami Valley Hospital
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


J Neurophysiol (December 19, 2007). doi:10.1152/jn.01110.2007
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
99/2/1032    most recent
01110.2007v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Welch, T. D. J.
Right arrow Articles by Ting, L. H
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Welch, T. D. J.
Right arrow Articles by Ting, L. H
Submitted on October 5, 2007
Accepted on December 16, 2007

A feedback model predicts muscle activity during human postural responses to support surface translations

Torrence D. J. Welch1 and Lena H Ting2*

1 Biomedical Engineering, Emory University and Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, United States
2 Emory Univ Georgia Tech, United States

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: lting{at}emory.edu.

Although feedback models have been used to simulate body motions in human postural control, it is not known whether muscle activation patterns during postural responses can also be explained by a feedback control process. We investigated whether a simple feedback law could explain temporal patterns of muscle activation in response to support-surface translations in human subjects. Previously, we used a single-link inverted-pendulum model with a delayed feedback controller to reproduce temporal patterns of muscle activity during postural responses in cats (Lockhart and Ting 2007). We scaled this model to human dimensions and determined whether it could reproduce human muscle activity during forward and backward support-surface perturbations. Through optimization, we found three feedback gains (on pendulum acceleration, velocity, and displacement) and a common time delay that allowed the model to best match measured electromyographic (EMG) signals. For each muscle and each subject, the entire timecourses of EMG signals during postural responses were well-reconstructed in muscles throughout the lower body and resembled an optimal solution. In ankle muscles, >75% of the EMG variability was accounted for by model reconstructions. Surprisingly, >67% of the EMG variability was also accounted for in knee, hip, and pelvis muscles, even though motion at these joints was minimal. Although not explicitly required by our optimization, pendulum kinematics were well-matched to subject center-of-mass (CoM) kinematics. Together, these results suggest that a common set of feedback signals related to task-level control of CoM motion is used in the temporal formation of muscle activity during postural control.







HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
Visit Other APS Journals Online
Copyright © 2007 by the The American Physiological Society.