Simulating Human Upper and Lower Limb Balance Recovery Responses Using Nonlinear Model Predictive Control
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ability to generate predictive dynamic simulations of human movement using optimal control has been a growing point of interest in the design of medical/assistive devices, e.g. robotic exoskeletons. Despite this, many disseminated simulations of whole-body tasks, such as balance recovery, neglect the role of the upper body instead focusing on postural joints, e.g. ankle, knees, hips. Thus, the purpose of the current study was to use a novel nonlinear model predictive control (NMPC) approach to assess how actuated upper limbs, as well as different individual performance (optimality) criteria, can shape simulated reactive balance recovery responses. A sagittal biomechanical model of a young adult standing was designed and actuated via nonlinear muscle torque generators (rotational single-muscle equivalents). Forward dynamic simulations of balance recovery (NMPCdriven) following an unexpected support-surface perturbation were generated for each unique combination of selected performance criteria (6 total), perturbation direction (forward and backward), and arm joints free/locked. The observed joint trajectories provide insight into the emergence of human elements of postural control from individual optimality criteria, e.g. hip-ankle strategies emerge from single-joint regulation. Quantitative analysis of performance improvements with the arms free suggest that whether arm responses emerge in the simulations may be dependent on the problem's initial guess. Future work should focus on testing further performance criteria and improving NMPC as a model of the nervous system.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".