Centre of pressure versus centre of mass stabilization strategies: the tightrope balancing case

This study proposes a generalization of the ankle and hip postural strategies to be applied to the large class of skills that share the same basic challenge of defeating the destabilizing effect of gravity on the basis of the same neuromotor control organization, adapted and specialized to a variable number of degrees of freedom, different body parts, different muscles and different sensory feedback channels. In all the cases, we can identify two crucial elements (the CoP, centre of pressure and the CoM, centre of mass) and the central point of the paper is that most balancing skills can be framed in the CoP–CoM interplay and can be modelled as a combination/alternation of two basic stabilization strategies: the standard well-investigated COPS (or CoP stabilization strategy, the default option), where the CoM is the controlled variable and the CoP is the control variable, and the less investigated COMS (or CoM stabilization strategy), where CoP and CoM must exchange their role because the range of motion of the CoP is strongly constrained by environmental conditions. The paper focuses on the tightrope balancing skill where sway control in the sagittal plane is modelled in terms of the COPS while the more challenging sway in the coronal plane is modelled in terms of the COMS, with the support of a suitable balance pole. Both stabilization strategies are implemented as state-space intermittent, delayed feedback controllers, independent of each other. Extensive simulations support the degree of plausibility, generality and robustness of the proposed approach.