Cargando…
Comparing joint kinematics and center of mass acceleration as feedback for control of standing balance by functional neuromuscular stimulation
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to determine the comparative effectiveness of feedback control systems for maintaining standing balance based on joint kinematics or total body center of mass (COM) acceleration, and assess their clinical practicality for standing neuroprostheses after spina...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2012
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3484032/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22559852 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1743-0003-9-25 |
_version_ | 1782248085597978624 |
---|---|
author | Nataraj, Raviraj Audu, Musa L Triolo, Ronald J |
author_facet | Nataraj, Raviraj Audu, Musa L Triolo, Ronald J |
author_sort | Nataraj, Raviraj |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to determine the comparative effectiveness of feedback control systems for maintaining standing balance based on joint kinematics or total body center of mass (COM) acceleration, and assess their clinical practicality for standing neuroprostheses after spinal cord injury (SCI). METHODS: In simulation, controller performance was measured according to the upper extremity effort required to stabilize a three-dimensional model of bipedal standing against a variety of postural disturbances. Three cases were investigated: proportional-derivative control based on joint kinematics alone, COM acceleration feedback alone, and combined joint kinematics and COM acceleration feedback. Additionally, pilot data was collected during external perturbations of an individual with SCI standing with functional neuromuscular stimulation (FNS), and the resulting joint kinematics and COM acceleration data was analyzed. RESULTS: Compared to the baseline case of maximal constant muscle excitations, the three control systems reduced the mean upper extremity loading by 51%, 43% and 56%, respectively against external force-pulse perturbations. Controller robustness was defined as the degradation in performance with increasing levels of input errors expected with clinical deployment of sensor-based feedback. At error levels typical for body-mounted inertial sensors, performance degradation due to sensor noise and placement were negligible. However, at typical tracking error levels, performance could degrade as much as 86% for joint kinematics feedback and 35% for COM acceleration feedback. Pilot data indicated that COM acceleration could be estimated with a few well-placed sensors and efficiently captures information related to movement synergies observed during perturbed bipedal standing following SCI. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, COM acceleration feedback may be a more feasible solution for control of standing with FNS given its superior robustness and small number of inputs required. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-3484032 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2012 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-34840322012-11-05 Comparing joint kinematics and center of mass acceleration as feedback for control of standing balance by functional neuromuscular stimulation Nataraj, Raviraj Audu, Musa L Triolo, Ronald J J Neuroeng Rehabil Research BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to determine the comparative effectiveness of feedback control systems for maintaining standing balance based on joint kinematics or total body center of mass (COM) acceleration, and assess their clinical practicality for standing neuroprostheses after spinal cord injury (SCI). METHODS: In simulation, controller performance was measured according to the upper extremity effort required to stabilize a three-dimensional model of bipedal standing against a variety of postural disturbances. Three cases were investigated: proportional-derivative control based on joint kinematics alone, COM acceleration feedback alone, and combined joint kinematics and COM acceleration feedback. Additionally, pilot data was collected during external perturbations of an individual with SCI standing with functional neuromuscular stimulation (FNS), and the resulting joint kinematics and COM acceleration data was analyzed. RESULTS: Compared to the baseline case of maximal constant muscle excitations, the three control systems reduced the mean upper extremity loading by 51%, 43% and 56%, respectively against external force-pulse perturbations. Controller robustness was defined as the degradation in performance with increasing levels of input errors expected with clinical deployment of sensor-based feedback. At error levels typical for body-mounted inertial sensors, performance degradation due to sensor noise and placement were negligible. However, at typical tracking error levels, performance could degrade as much as 86% for joint kinematics feedback and 35% for COM acceleration feedback. Pilot data indicated that COM acceleration could be estimated with a few well-placed sensors and efficiently captures information related to movement synergies observed during perturbed bipedal standing following SCI. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, COM acceleration feedback may be a more feasible solution for control of standing with FNS given its superior robustness and small number of inputs required. BioMed Central 2012-05-06 /pmc/articles/PMC3484032/ /pubmed/22559852 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1743-0003-9-25 Text en Copyright ©2012 Nataraj et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Research Nataraj, Raviraj Audu, Musa L Triolo, Ronald J Comparing joint kinematics and center of mass acceleration as feedback for control of standing balance by functional neuromuscular stimulation |
title | Comparing joint kinematics and center of mass acceleration as feedback for control of standing balance by functional neuromuscular stimulation |
title_full | Comparing joint kinematics and center of mass acceleration as feedback for control of standing balance by functional neuromuscular stimulation |
title_fullStr | Comparing joint kinematics and center of mass acceleration as feedback for control of standing balance by functional neuromuscular stimulation |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparing joint kinematics and center of mass acceleration as feedback for control of standing balance by functional neuromuscular stimulation |
title_short | Comparing joint kinematics and center of mass acceleration as feedback for control of standing balance by functional neuromuscular stimulation |
title_sort | comparing joint kinematics and center of mass acceleration as feedback for control of standing balance by functional neuromuscular stimulation |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3484032/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22559852 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1743-0003-9-25 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT natarajraviraj comparingjointkinematicsandcenterofmassaccelerationasfeedbackforcontrolofstandingbalancebyfunctionalneuromuscularstimulation AT audumusal comparingjointkinematicsandcenterofmassaccelerationasfeedbackforcontrolofstandingbalancebyfunctionalneuromuscularstimulation AT trioloronaldj comparingjointkinematicsandcenterofmassaccelerationasfeedbackforcontrolofstandingbalancebyfunctionalneuromuscularstimulation |