Stabilization strategies for unstable dynamics.

BACKGROUND: When humans are faced with an unstable task, two different stabilization mechanisms are possible: a high-stiffness strategy, based on the inherent elastic properties of muscles/tools/manipulated objects, or a low-stiffness strategy, based on an explicit positional feedback mechanism. Spe...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Devjani J Saha, Pietro Morasso
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2012-01-01
Series:PLoS ONE
Online Access:http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC3261184?pdf=render
_version_ 1818648471436001280
author Devjani J Saha
Pietro Morasso
author_facet Devjani J Saha
Pietro Morasso
author_sort Devjani J Saha
collection DOAJ
description BACKGROUND: When humans are faced with an unstable task, two different stabilization mechanisms are possible: a high-stiffness strategy, based on the inherent elastic properties of muscles/tools/manipulated objects, or a low-stiffness strategy, based on an explicit positional feedback mechanism. Specific constraints related to the dynamics of the task and/or the neuromuscular system often force people to adopt one of these two strategies. METHODOLOGY/FINDINGS: This experiment was designed such that subjects could achieve stability using either strategy, with a marked difference in terms of effort and control requirements between the two strategies. The task was to balance a virtual mass in an unstable environment via two elastic linkages that connected the mass to each hand. The dynamics of the mass under the influence of the unstable force field and the forces applied through the linkages were simulated using a bimanual, planar robot. The two linkages were non-linear, with a stiffness that increased with the amount of stretch. The mass could be stabilized by stretching the linkages to achieve a stiffness that was greater than the instability coefficient of the unstable field (high-stiffness), or by balancing the mass with sequences of small force impulses (low-stiffness). The results showed that 62% of the subjects quickly adopted the high-stiffness strategy, with stiffness ellipses that were aligned along the direction of instability. The remaining subjects applied the low-stiffness strategy, with no clear preference for the orientation of the stiffness ellipse. CONCLUSIONS: The choice of a strategy was based on the bimanual coordination of the hands: high-stiffness subjects achieved stability quickly by separating the hands to stretch the linkages, while the low-stiffness subjects kept the hands close together and took longer to achieve stability but with lower effort. We suggest that the existence of multiple solutions leads to different types of skilled behavior in unstable environments.
first_indexed 2024-12-17T01:18:57Z
format Article
id doaj.art-6b8903dc32f14c169a0fb3d3b16f4506
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 1932-6203
language English
last_indexed 2024-12-17T01:18:57Z
publishDate 2012-01-01
publisher Public Library of Science (PLoS)
record_format Article
series PLoS ONE
spelling doaj.art-6b8903dc32f14c169a0fb3d3b16f45062022-12-21T22:08:54ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032012-01-0171e3030110.1371/journal.pone.0030301Stabilization strategies for unstable dynamics.Devjani J SahaPietro MorassoBACKGROUND: When humans are faced with an unstable task, two different stabilization mechanisms are possible: a high-stiffness strategy, based on the inherent elastic properties of muscles/tools/manipulated objects, or a low-stiffness strategy, based on an explicit positional feedback mechanism. Specific constraints related to the dynamics of the task and/or the neuromuscular system often force people to adopt one of these two strategies. METHODOLOGY/FINDINGS: This experiment was designed such that subjects could achieve stability using either strategy, with a marked difference in terms of effort and control requirements between the two strategies. The task was to balance a virtual mass in an unstable environment via two elastic linkages that connected the mass to each hand. The dynamics of the mass under the influence of the unstable force field and the forces applied through the linkages were simulated using a bimanual, planar robot. The two linkages were non-linear, with a stiffness that increased with the amount of stretch. The mass could be stabilized by stretching the linkages to achieve a stiffness that was greater than the instability coefficient of the unstable field (high-stiffness), or by balancing the mass with sequences of small force impulses (low-stiffness). The results showed that 62% of the subjects quickly adopted the high-stiffness strategy, with stiffness ellipses that were aligned along the direction of instability. The remaining subjects applied the low-stiffness strategy, with no clear preference for the orientation of the stiffness ellipse. CONCLUSIONS: The choice of a strategy was based on the bimanual coordination of the hands: high-stiffness subjects achieved stability quickly by separating the hands to stretch the linkages, while the low-stiffness subjects kept the hands close together and took longer to achieve stability but with lower effort. We suggest that the existence of multiple solutions leads to different types of skilled behavior in unstable environments.http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC3261184?pdf=render
spellingShingle Devjani J Saha
Pietro Morasso
Stabilization strategies for unstable dynamics.
PLoS ONE
title Stabilization strategies for unstable dynamics.
title_full Stabilization strategies for unstable dynamics.
title_fullStr Stabilization strategies for unstable dynamics.
title_full_unstemmed Stabilization strategies for unstable dynamics.
title_short Stabilization strategies for unstable dynamics.
title_sort stabilization strategies for unstable dynamics
url http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC3261184?pdf=render
work_keys_str_mv AT devjanijsaha stabilizationstrategiesforunstabledynamics
AT pietromorasso stabilizationstrategiesforunstabledynamics