4.7 Article

Viability, task switching, and fall avoidance of the simplest dynamic walker

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 12, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-11966-3

关键词

-

资金

  1. U.S. National Institutes of Health [R01-AG049735]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study identifies the important role of task-level motor regulation in fall avoidance and proposes an adaptive hierarchical control/regulation strategy. Humans have already learned to perform goal-directed tasks during nominal walking conditions, suggesting low implementation costs for such controllers biologically.
Walking humans display great versatility when achieving task goals, like avoiding obstacles or walking alongside others, but the relevance of this to fall avoidance remains unknown. We recently demonstrated a functional connection between the motor regulation needed to achieve task goals (e.g., maintaining walking speed) and a simple walker's ability to reject large disturbances. Here, for the same model, we identify the viability kernel-the largest state-space region where the walker can step forever via at least one sequence of push-off inputs per state. We further find that only a few basins of attraction of the speed-regulated walker's steady-state gaits can fully cover the viability kernel. This highlights a potentially important role of task-level motor regulation in fall avoidance. Therefore, we posit an adaptive hierarchical control/regulation strategy that switches between different task-level regulators to avoid falls. Our task switching controller only requires a target value of the regulated observable-a task switch-at every walking step, each chosen from a small, predetermined collection. Because humans have typically already learned to perform such goal-directed tasks during nominal walking conditions, this suggests that the information cost of biologically implementing such controllers for the nervous system, including cognitive demands in humans, could be quite low.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据