Cv
C. van de Kamp
info
Please Note
<p>This page displays the records of the person named above and is not linked to a unique person identifier. This record may need to be merged to a profile.</p>
9 records found
1
Objective: To explain the 0.2-2Hz oscillation in human balance. Motivation: Oscillation (0.2-2 Hz) in the control signal (ankle moment) is sustained independently of external disturbances and exaggerated in Parkinson's disease. Does resonance or limit cycles in the neurophysiological feedback loop cause this oscillation? We investigate two linear (non-predictive, predictive) and one non-linear (intermittent-predictive) control model (NPC, PC, IPC). Methods: Fourteen healthy participants, strapped to an actuated single segment robot with dynamics of upright standing, used natural haptic-visual feedback and myoelectric control signals from lower leg muscles to maintain balance. An input disturbance applied stepwise changes in external force. A linear time invariant model (ARX) extracted the delayed component of the control signal related linearly to the disturbance, leaving the remaining, larger, oscillatory non-linear component. We optimized model parameters and noise (observation, motor) to replicate concurrently (i) estimated-delay, (ii) time-series of the linear component, and (iii) magnitude-frequency spectrum and transient magnitude response of the non-linear component. Results (mean±S.D., p<0.05): NPC produced estimated delays (0.116±0.03s) significantly lower than experiment (0.145±0.04s). Overall fit (i)-(iii) was (79±7%, 83±7%, 84±6% for NPC, PC, IPC). IPC required little or no noise. Mean frequency of experimental oscillation (0.99±0.16 Hz) correlated trial by trial with closed loop resonant frequency (fres), not limit cycles, nor sampling rate. NPC (0.36±0.08Hz) and PC (0.86±0.4Hz) showed fres significantly lower than IPC (0.98±0.2Hz). Conclusion: Human balance control requires short-term prediction. Significance: IPC mechanisms (prediction error, threshold related sampling, sequential re-initialization of open-loop predictive control) explain resonant gain without uncontrolled oscillation for healthy balance.
...
Objective: To explain the 0.2-2Hz oscillation in human balance. Motivation: Oscillation (0.2-2 Hz) in the control signal (ankle moment) is sustained independently of external disturbances and exaggerated in Parkinson's disease. Does resonance or limit cycles in the neurophysiological feedback loop cause this oscillation? We investigate two linear (non-predictive, predictive) and one non-linear (intermittent-predictive) control model (NPC, PC, IPC). Methods: Fourteen healthy participants, strapped to an actuated single segment robot with dynamics of upright standing, used natural haptic-visual feedback and myoelectric control signals from lower leg muscles to maintain balance. An input disturbance applied stepwise changes in external force. A linear time invariant model (ARX) extracted the delayed component of the control signal related linearly to the disturbance, leaving the remaining, larger, oscillatory non-linear component. We optimized model parameters and noise (observation, motor) to replicate concurrently (i) estimated-delay, (ii) time-series of the linear component, and (iii) magnitude-frequency spectrum and transient magnitude response of the non-linear component. Results (mean±S.D., p<0.05): NPC produced estimated delays (0.116±0.03s) significantly lower than experiment (0.145±0.04s). Overall fit (i)-(iii) was (79±7%, 83±7%, 84±6% for NPC, PC, IPC). IPC required little or no noise. Mean frequency of experimental oscillation (0.99±0.16 Hz) correlated trial by trial with closed loop resonant frequency (fres), not limit cycles, nor sampling rate. NPC (0.36±0.08Hz) and PC (0.86±0.4Hz) showed fres significantly lower than IPC (0.98±0.2Hz). Conclusion: Human balance control requires short-term prediction. Significance: IPC mechanisms (prediction error, threshold related sampling, sequential re-initialization of open-loop predictive control) explain resonant gain without uncontrolled oscillation for healthy balance.
Journal article
(2017)
-
Joost Van Der Weijde, B. Smit (student), Michael Fritschi, Cornelis Van De Kamp, Heike Vallery
The recently introduced twisted and coiled polymer muscle is an inexpensive and lightweight compliant actuator. Incorporation of themuscle in applications that rely on feedback creates the need for deflection and force sensing. In this paper, we explore a sensing principle that does not require any bulky or expensive additional hardware: Self-sensing via electrical impedance. To this end, we characterize the relation between electrical impedance on the one hand, and deflection, force, and temperature on the other hand for the Joule-heated version of this muscle. Investigation of the theoretical relations provides potential fit functions that are verified experimentally. Using these fit functions results in an average estimation error of 0.8%, 7.6%, and 0.5%, respectively, for estimating deflection, force, and temperature. This indicates the suitability of this self-sensing principle in the Joule-heated twisted and coiled polymer muscle.
...
The recently introduced twisted and coiled polymer muscle is an inexpensive and lightweight compliant actuator. Incorporation of themuscle in applications that rely on feedback creates the need for deflection and force sensing. In this paper, we explore a sensing principle that does not require any bulky or expensive additional hardware: Self-sensing via electrical impedance. To this end, we characterize the relation between electrical impedance on the one hand, and deflection, force, and temperature on the other hand for the Joule-heated version of this muscle. Investigation of the theoretical relations provides potential fit functions that are verified experimentally. Using these fit functions results in an average estimation error of 0.8%, 7.6%, and 0.5%, respectively, for estimating deflection, force, and temperature. This indicates the suitability of this self-sensing principle in the Joule-heated twisted and coiled polymer muscle.
Journal article
(2014)
-
Ian David Loram, Cornelis Van De Kamp, Martin Lakie, Henrik Gollee, Peter J. Gawthrop
Explanation of motor control is dominated by continuous neurophysiological pathways (e.g., transcortical, spinal) and the continuous control paradigm. Using new theoretical development, methodology, and evidence, we propose intermittent control, which incorporates a serial ballistic process within the main feedback loop, provides a more general and more accurate paradigm necessary to explain attributes highly advantageous for competitive survival and performance.
...
Explanation of motor control is dominated by continuous neurophysiological pathways (e.g., transcortical, spinal) and the continuous control paradigm. Using new theoretical development, methodology, and evidence, we propose intermittent control, which incorporates a serial ballistic process within the main feedback loop, provides a more general and more accurate paradigm necessary to explain attributes highly advantageous for competitive survival and performance.
Refractoriness in Sustained Visuo-Manual Control
Is the Refractory Duration Intrinsic or Does It Depend on External System Properties?
Journal article
(2013)
-
Cornelis van de Kamp, Peter J. Gawthrop, Henrik Gollee, Ian D. Loram
Researchers have previously adopted the double stimulus paradigm to study refractoriness in human neuromotor control. Currently, refractoriness, such as the Psychological Refractory Period (PRP) has only been quantified in discrete movement conditions. Whether refractoriness and the associated serial ballistic hypothesis generalises to sustained control tasks has remained open for more than sixty years. Recently, a method of analysis has been presented that quantifies refractoriness in sustained control tasks and discriminates intermittent (serial ballistic) from continuous control. Following our recent demonstration that continuous control of an unstable second order system (i.e. balancing a 'virtual' inverted pendulum through a joystick interface) is unnecessary, we ask whether refractoriness of substantial duration (~200 ms) is evident in sustained visual-manual control of external systems. We ask whether the refractory duration (i) is physiologically intrinsic, (ii) depends upon system properties like the order (0, 1st, and 2nd) or stability, (iii) depends upon target jump direction (reversal, same direction). Thirteen participants used discrete movements (zero order system) as well as more sustained control activity (1st and 2nd order systems) to track unpredictable step-sequence targets. Results show a substantial refractory duration that depends upon system order (250, 350 and 550 ms for 0, 1st and 2nd order respectively, n = 13, p<0.05), but not stability. In sustained control refractoriness was only found when the target reverses direction. In the presence of time varying actuators, systems and constraints, we propose that central refractoriness is an appropriate control mechanism for accommodating online optimization delays within the neural circuitry including the more variable processing times of higher order (complex) input-output relations.
...
Researchers have previously adopted the double stimulus paradigm to study refractoriness in human neuromotor control. Currently, refractoriness, such as the Psychological Refractory Period (PRP) has only been quantified in discrete movement conditions. Whether refractoriness and the associated serial ballistic hypothesis generalises to sustained control tasks has remained open for more than sixty years. Recently, a method of analysis has been presented that quantifies refractoriness in sustained control tasks and discriminates intermittent (serial ballistic) from continuous control. Following our recent demonstration that continuous control of an unstable second order system (i.e. balancing a 'virtual' inverted pendulum through a joystick interface) is unnecessary, we ask whether refractoriness of substantial duration (~200 ms) is evident in sustained visual-manual control of external systems. We ask whether the refractory duration (i) is physiologically intrinsic, (ii) depends upon system properties like the order (0, 1st, and 2nd) or stability, (iii) depends upon target jump direction (reversal, same direction). Thirteen participants used discrete movements (zero order system) as well as more sustained control activity (1st and 2nd order systems) to track unpredictable step-sequence targets. Results show a substantial refractory duration that depends upon system order (250, 350 and 550 ms for 0, 1st and 2nd order respectively, n = 13, p<0.05), but not stability. In sustained control refractoriness was only found when the target reverses direction. In the presence of time varying actuators, systems and constraints, we propose that central refractoriness is an appropriate control mechanism for accommodating online optimization delays within the neural circuitry including the more variable processing times of higher order (complex) input-output relations.
Interfacing sensory input with motor output
Does the control architecture converge to a serial process along a single channel?
Journal article
(2013)
-
Cornelis van de Kamp, Peter J. Gawthrop, Henrik Gollee, Martin Lakie, Ian D. Loram
Modular organisation in control architecture may underlie the versatility of human motor control; but the nature of the interface relating sensory input through task-selection in the space of performance variables to control actions in the space of the elemental variables is currently unknown. Our central question is whether the control architecture converges to a serial process along a single channel? In discrete reaction time experiments, psychologists have firmly associated a serial single channel hypothesis with refractoriness and response selection (psychological refractory period). Recently, we developed a methodology and evidence identifying refractoriness in sustained control of an external single degree-of- freedom system. We hypothesise that multi-segmental whole-body control also shows refractoriness. Eight participants controlled their whole body to ensure a head marker tracked a target as fast and accurately as possible. Analysis showed enhanced delays in response to stimuli with close temporal proximity to the preceding stimulus. Consistent with our preceding work, this evidence is incompatible with control as a linear time invariant process. This evidence is consistent with a single-channel serial ballistic process within the intermittent control paradigm with an intermittent interval of around 0.5 s. A control architecture reproducing intentional human movement control must reproduce refractoriness. Intermittent control is designed to provide computational time for an online optimisation process and is appropriate for flexible adaptive control. For human motor control we suggest that parallel sensory input converges to a serial, single channel process involving planning, selection and temporal inhibition of alternative responses prior to low dimensional motor output. Such design could aid robots to reproduce the flexibility of human control.
...
Modular organisation in control architecture may underlie the versatility of human motor control; but the nature of the interface relating sensory input through task-selection in the space of performance variables to control actions in the space of the elemental variables is currently unknown. Our central question is whether the control architecture converges to a serial process along a single channel? In discrete reaction time experiments, psychologists have firmly associated a serial single channel hypothesis with refractoriness and response selection (psychological refractory period). Recently, we developed a methodology and evidence identifying refractoriness in sustained control of an external single degree-of- freedom system. We hypothesise that multi-segmental whole-body control also shows refractoriness. Eight participants controlled their whole body to ensure a head marker tracked a target as fast and accurately as possible. Analysis showed enhanced delays in response to stimuli with close temporal proximity to the preceding stimulus. Consistent with our preceding work, this evidence is incompatible with control as a linear time invariant process. This evidence is consistent with a single-channel serial ballistic process within the intermittent control paradigm with an intermittent interval of around 0.5 s. A control architecture reproducing intentional human movement control must reproduce refractoriness. Intermittent control is designed to provide computational time for an online optimisation process and is appropriate for flexible adaptive control. For human motor control we suggest that parallel sensory input converges to a serial, single channel process involving planning, selection and temporal inhibition of alternative responses prior to low dimensional motor output. Such design could aid robots to reproduce the flexibility of human control.
Journal article
(2012)
-
Cornelis van de Kamp, Raoul M. Bongers, Frank T.J.M. Zaal
To catch or grasp an object, the initiation of hand closure has to be coordinated with the relative movement between hand and object. In search of a common control of the initiation of hand closure for both tasks (van de Kamp, Bongers, & Zaal, 2010), the authors studied two tasks, catching while keeping the hand stationary and prehension. They showed that the initiation of hand closure could well be based on first-order time-to-contact in the prehension task but not in the catching task studied. The current study tested if the fact that the hand-object gap was closed at a linear rate made that the initiation of hand closure could not be explained on the basis of that same first-order time-to-contact in the catching task. In Experiment 1, the participants had to catch targets that approached at nonlinear rates while keeping the hand stationary. In Experiment 2, the participants were free to move their hand in catching the approaching objects, allowing the closure of the hand-object gap to occur at a nonlinear rate as it would in natural movements. The results showed that the first-order time-to-contact based control of the initiation of hand closure did apply in Experiment 2, whereas it did not in Experiment 1. It was concluded that constraining the catching task such that it became unfamiliar led to a hampered timing, thus obstructing the finding of the common control in the previous study, and in Experiment 1 of the current study.
...
To catch or grasp an object, the initiation of hand closure has to be coordinated with the relative movement between hand and object. In search of a common control of the initiation of hand closure for both tasks (van de Kamp, Bongers, & Zaal, 2010), the authors studied two tasks, catching while keeping the hand stationary and prehension. They showed that the initiation of hand closure could well be based on first-order time-to-contact in the prehension task but not in the catching task studied. The current study tested if the fact that the hand-object gap was closed at a linear rate made that the initiation of hand closure could not be explained on the basis of that same first-order time-to-contact in the catching task. In Experiment 1, the participants had to catch targets that approached at nonlinear rates while keeping the hand stationary. In Experiment 2, the participants were free to move their hand in catching the approaching objects, allowing the closure of the hand-object gap to occur at a nonlinear rate as it would in natural movements. The results showed that the first-order time-to-contact based control of the initiation of hand closure did apply in Experiment 2, whereas it did not in Experiment 1. It was concluded that constraining the catching task such that it became unfamiliar led to a hampered timing, thus obstructing the finding of the common control in the previous study, and in Experiment 1 of the current study.
Journal article
(2012)
-
Ian D. Loram, Cornelis Van De Kamp, Henrik Gollee, Peter J. Gawthrop
Regulation by negative feedback is fundamental to engineering and biological processes. Biological regulation is usually explained using continuous feedback models from both classical and modern control theory. An alternative control paradigm, intermittent control, has also been suggested as a model for biological control systems, particularly those involving the central nervous system. However, at present, there is no identification method explicitly formulated to distinguish intermittent from continuous control; here, we present such a method. The identification experiment uses a special paired-step set-point sequence. The corresponding data analysis use a conventional ARMA model to relate a theoretically derived equivalent set-point to control signal; the novelty lies in sequentially and iteratively adjusting the timing of the steps of this equivalent set-point to optimize the linear time-invariant fit. The method was verified using realistic simulation data and was found to robustly distinguish not only between continuous and intermittent control but also between event-driven intermittent and clock-driven intermittent control. When applied to human pursuit tracking, event-driven intermittent control was identified, with an intermittent interval of 260-310 ms (n = 6, p < 0.05). This new identification method is applicable for machine and biological applications.
...
Regulation by negative feedback is fundamental to engineering and biological processes. Biological regulation is usually explained using continuous feedback models from both classical and modern control theory. An alternative control paradigm, intermittent control, has also been suggested as a model for biological control systems, particularly those involving the central nervous system. However, at present, there is no identification method explicitly formulated to distinguish intermittent from continuous control; here, we present such a method. The identification experiment uses a special paired-step set-point sequence. The corresponding data analysis use a conventional ARMA model to relate a theoretically derived equivalent set-point to control signal; the novelty lies in sequentially and iteratively adjusting the timing of the steps of this equivalent set-point to optimize the linear time-invariant fit. The method was verified using realistic simulation data and was found to robustly distinguish not only between continuous and intermittent control but also between event-driven intermittent and clock-driven intermittent control. When applied to human pursuit tracking, event-driven intermittent control was identified, with an intermittent interval of 260-310 ms (n = 6, p < 0.05). This new identification method is applicable for machine and biological applications.
Getting hold of approaching objects
In search of a common control of hand-closure initiation in catching and grasping
Journal article
(2010)
-
Cornelis van de Kamp, Raoul M. Bongers, Frank T.J.M. Zaal
Both in the catching and grasping component of prehension, the hand opens and closes before hand-object contact is made. The initiation of hand closure has to be coordinated with the time course of the decrease of the distance between the hand and the target object, i.e., with the reaching component in prehension or the approach of the target in catching. The authors investigated if this initiation of hand closure could be explained by a common control. For this purpose, they fitted the dynamic timing model to data from the two tasks. In both tasks, participants were asked to get hold of an object approaching along the table top at a constant velocity. In the prehension task, participants could reach out to grasp the object; in the catching task, they were required to keep their hand stationary. In comparison with other accounts, the dynamic timing model performed best in explaining the data. The model proved adequate for the prehension task but not for the current catching task.
...
Both in the catching and grasping component of prehension, the hand opens and closes before hand-object contact is made. The initiation of hand closure has to be coordinated with the time course of the decrease of the distance between the hand and the target object, i.e., with the reaching component in prehension or the approach of the target in catching. The authors investigated if this initiation of hand closure could be explained by a common control. For this purpose, they fitted the dynamic timing model to data from the two tasks. In both tasks, participants were asked to get hold of an object approaching along the table top at a constant velocity. In the prehension task, participants could reach out to grasp the object; in the catching task, they were required to keep their hand stationary. In comparison with other accounts, the dynamic timing model performed best in explaining the data. The model proved adequate for the prehension task but not for the current catching task.
Journal article
(2007)
-
Cornelis Van De Kamp, Frank T.J.M. Zaal
Prehension has traditionally been seen as the act of coordinated reaching and grasping. However, recently, Smeets and Brenner (in Motor Control 3:237-271, 1999) proposed that we might just as well look at prehension as the combination of two independently moving digits. The hand aperture that has featured prominently in many studies on prehension, according to Smeets and Brenner's "double-pointing hypothesis", is really an emergent property related to the time course of the positions of the two digits moving to their respective end points. We tested this double-pointing hypothesis by perturbing the end position of one of the digits while leaving the end position of the opposing digit unchanged. To this end, we had participants reach for and grasp a metallic object of which the side surfaces could be made to slide in and out. We administered the perturbation right after movement initiation. On several occasions, after perturbing the end position of one digit, we found effects also on the kinematics of the opposing digit. These findings are in conflict with Smeets and Brenner's double-pointing hypothesis.
...
Prehension has traditionally been seen as the act of coordinated reaching and grasping. However, recently, Smeets and Brenner (in Motor Control 3:237-271, 1999) proposed that we might just as well look at prehension as the combination of two independently moving digits. The hand aperture that has featured prominently in many studies on prehension, according to Smeets and Brenner's "double-pointing hypothesis", is really an emergent property related to the time course of the positions of the two digits moving to their respective end points. We tested this double-pointing hypothesis by perturbing the end position of one of the digits while leaving the end position of the opposing digit unchanged. To this end, we had participants reach for and grasp a metallic object of which the side surfaces could be made to slide in and out. We administered the perturbation right after movement initiation. On several occasions, after perturbing the end position of one digit, we found effects also on the kinematics of the opposing digit. These findings are in conflict with Smeets and Brenner's double-pointing hypothesis.