{"title":"MPC-based postural control: Mimicking CNS strategies for head–neck stabilization under eyes closed conditions","authors":"Chrysovalanto Messiou, Riender Happee, Georgios Papaioannou","doi":"10.1016/j.conengprac.2025.106428","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>A plausible explanation about the acquisition and realization of beliefs by the central nervous system (CNS) when issuing control actions to counteract external perturbations, is to employ mechanisms aiming to minimize sensory conflict and muscle effort while maintaining biomechanical stability. However, existing head–neck postural control models fail to explicitly integrate this plausible CNS objective within their stabilization mechanisms. This study proposes a novel Model Predictive Control (MPC)-based framework to replicate CNS postural stabilization by incorporating the minimization of sensory conflict as a primary control objective through the MPC cost function. The MPC is integrated in a simplified biomechanical head–neck structure, using a prediction model and sensory feedback to optimize control actions over a finite time horizon within biomechanical constraints. Two human experiments measuring head motion with unpredictable seat and trunk perturbations were used to evaluate and validate different configurations of sensory feedback pathways. During anterior–posterior translational trunk perturbations, the results illustrated that the configuration with vestibular feedback improved head position prediction while muscle effort and partial somatosensory feedback alone, achieved superior results in head pitch prediction. Meanwhile, muscle effort and partial somatosensory feedback were sufficient to stabilize the head during trunk rotational (pitch) perturbations. Finally, a multi-scenario optimization demonstrated that a single set of MPC weights could generalize stabilization across both perturbation types. The results demonstrate the effectiveness of MPC in replicating CNS-inspired postural adjustments, indicating that controlling a simplified biomechanical head–neck model provides a computationally efficient and accurate alternative to complex multi-segment approaches.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":50615,"journal":{"name":"Control Engineering Practice","volume":"164 ","pages":"Article 106428"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Control Engineering Practice","FirstCategoryId":"94","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967066125001911","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"计算机科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AUTOMATION & CONTROL SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
A plausible explanation about the acquisition and realization of beliefs by the central nervous system (CNS) when issuing control actions to counteract external perturbations, is to employ mechanisms aiming to minimize sensory conflict and muscle effort while maintaining biomechanical stability. However, existing head–neck postural control models fail to explicitly integrate this plausible CNS objective within their stabilization mechanisms. This study proposes a novel Model Predictive Control (MPC)-based framework to replicate CNS postural stabilization by incorporating the minimization of sensory conflict as a primary control objective through the MPC cost function. The MPC is integrated in a simplified biomechanical head–neck structure, using a prediction model and sensory feedback to optimize control actions over a finite time horizon within biomechanical constraints. Two human experiments measuring head motion with unpredictable seat and trunk perturbations were used to evaluate and validate different configurations of sensory feedback pathways. During anterior–posterior translational trunk perturbations, the results illustrated that the configuration with vestibular feedback improved head position prediction while muscle effort and partial somatosensory feedback alone, achieved superior results in head pitch prediction. Meanwhile, muscle effort and partial somatosensory feedback were sufficient to stabilize the head during trunk rotational (pitch) perturbations. Finally, a multi-scenario optimization demonstrated that a single set of MPC weights could generalize stabilization across both perturbation types. The results demonstrate the effectiveness of MPC in replicating CNS-inspired postural adjustments, indicating that controlling a simplified biomechanical head–neck model provides a computationally efficient and accurate alternative to complex multi-segment approaches.
期刊介绍:
Control Engineering Practice strives to meet the needs of industrial practitioners and industrially related academics and researchers. It publishes papers which illustrate the direct application of control theory and its supporting tools in all possible areas of automation. As a result, the journal only contains papers which can be considered to have made significant contributions to the application of advanced control techniques. It is normally expected that practical results should be included, but where simulation only studies are available, it is necessary to demonstrate that the simulation model is representative of a genuine application. Strictly theoretical papers will find a more appropriate home in Control Engineering Practice''s sister publication, Automatica. It is also expected that papers are innovative with respect to the state of the art and are sufficiently detailed for a reader to be able to duplicate the main results of the paper (supplementary material, including datasets, tables, code and any relevant interactive material can be made available and downloaded from the website). The benefits of the presented methods must be made very clear and the new techniques must be compared and contrasted with results obtained using existing methods. Moreover, a thorough analysis of failures that may happen in the design process and implementation can also be part of the paper.
The scope of Control Engineering Practice matches the activities of IFAC.
Papers demonstrating the contribution of automation and control in improving the performance, quality, productivity, sustainability, resource and energy efficiency, and the manageability of systems and processes for the benefit of mankind and are relevant to industrial practitioners are most welcome.