Internal model (motor control)

Last updated
Forward model of an arm movement. The motor command, u(t), of the arm movement is input to the plant and the predicted position of the body, x(t), is output. Basic Forward Model.png
Forward model of an arm movement. The motor command, u(t), of the arm movement is input to the plant and the predicted position of the body, x̃(t), is output.

In the subject area of control theory, an internal model is a process that simulates the response of the system in order to estimate the outcome of a system disturbance. The internal model principle was first articulated in 1976 by B. A. Francis and W. M. Wonham [1] as an explicit formulation of the Conant and Ashby good regulator theorem. [2] It stands in contrast to classical control, in that the classical feedback loop fails to explicitly model the controlled system (although the classical controller may contain an implicit model). [3] [4]

Contents

The internal model theory of motor control argues that the motor system is controlled by the constant interactions of the “plant” and the “controller.” The plant is the body part being controlled, while the internal model itself is considered part of the controller. Information from the controller, such as information from the central nervous system (CNS), feedback information, and the efference copy, is sent to the plant which moves accordingly.

Internal models can be controlled through either feed-forward or feedback control. Feed-forward control computes its input into a system using only the current state and its model of the system. It does not use feedback, so it cannot correct for errors in its control. In feedback control, some of the output of the system can be fed back into the system's input, and the system is then able to make adjustments or compensate for errors from its desired output. Two primary types of internal models have been proposed: forward models and inverse models. In simulations, models can be combined to solve more complex movement tasks.

Forward models

Figure 1. The desired position of the body is the reference input to the hypothetical controller, which generates the necessary motor command. This motor command is sent to the plant to move the body and an efference copy of the motor command is sent to a forward model. The output from the forward model (predicted body position) is compared with the output from the plant (body position). Noise from the system or the environment may cause differences between the actual and predicted body positions. The error (difference) between the actual and predicted positions can provide feedback to improve the movement for the next iteration of the internal model. Basic Internal Model.png
Figure 1. The desired position of the body is the reference input to the hypothetical controller, which generates the necessary motor command. This motor command is sent to the plant to move the body and an efference copy of the motor command is sent to a forward model. The output from the forward model (predicted body position) is compared with the output from the plant (body position). Noise from the system or the environment may cause differences between the actual and predicted body positions. The error (difference) between the actual and predicted positions can provide feedback to improve the movement for the next iteration of the internal model.

In their simplest form, forward models take the input of a motor command to the “plant” and output a predicted position of the body.

The motor command input to the forward model can be an efference copy, as seen in Figure 1. The output from that forward model, the predicted position of the body, is then compared with the actual position of the body. The actual and predicted position of the body may differ due to noise introduced into the system by either internal (e.g. body sensors are not perfect, sensory noise) or external (e.g. unpredictable forces from outside the body) sources. If the actual and predicted body positions differ, the difference can be fed back as an input into the entire system again so that an adjusted set of motor commands can be formed to create a more accurate movement.

Inverse models

Figure 2. Inverse model of a reaching task. The arm's desired trajectory, Xref(t), is input into the model, which generates the necessary motor commands, u(t), to control the arm. Inverse Model.png
Figure 2. Inverse model of a reaching task. The arm's desired trajectory, Xref(t), is input into the model, which generates the necessary motor commands, ũ(t), to control the arm.

Inverse models use the desired and actual position of the body as inputs to estimate the necessary motor commands which would transform the current position into the desired one. For example, in an arm reaching task, the desired position (or a trajectory of consecutive positions) of the arm is input into the postulated inverse model, and the inverse model generates the motor commands needed to control the arm and bring it into this desired configuration (Figure 2). Inverse internal models are also in close connection with the uncontrolled manifold hypothesis (UCM), see also here.

Combined forward and inverse models

Theoretical work has shown that in models of motor control, when inverse models are used in combination with a forward model, the efference copy of the motor command output from the inverse model can be used as an input to a forward model for further predictions. For example, if, in addition to reaching with the arm, the hand must be controlled to grab an object, an efference copy of the arm motor command can be input into a forward model to estimate the arm's predicted trajectory. With this information, the controller can then generate the appropriate motor command telling the hand to grab the object. It has been proposed that if they exist, this combination of inverse and forward models would allow the CNS to take a desired action (reach with the arm), accurately control the reach and then accurately control the hand to grip an object. [5]

Adaptive Control theory

With the assumption that new models can be acquired and pre-existing models can be updated, the efference copy is important for the adaptive control of a movement task. Throughout the duration of a motor task, an efference copy is fed into a forward model known as a dynamics predictor whose output allows prediction of the motor output. When applying adaptive control theory techniques to motor control, efference copy is used in indirect control schemes as the input to the reference model.

Scientists

A wide range of scientists contribute to progress on the internal model hypothesis. Michael I. Jordan, Emanuel Todorov and Daniel Wolpert contributed significantly to the mathematical formalization. Sandro Mussa-Ivaldi, Mitsuo Kawato, Claude Ghez, Reza Shadmehr, Randy Flanagan and Konrad Kording contributed with numerous behavioral experiments. The DIVA model of speech production developed by Frank H. Guenther and colleagues uses combined forward and inverse models to produce auditory trajectories with simulated speech articulators. Two interesting inverse internal models for the control of speech production [6] were developed by Iaroslav Blagouchine & Eric Moreau. [7] Both models combine the optimum principles and the equilibrium-point hypothesis (motor commands λ are taken as coordinates of the internal space). The input motor command λ is found by minimizing the length of the path traveled in the internal space, either under the acoustical constraint (the first model), or under the both acoustical and mechanical constraints (the second model). The acoustical constraint is related to the quality of the produced speech (measured in terms of formants), while the mechanical one is related to the stiffness of the tongue's body. The first model, in which the stiffness remains uncontrolled, is in agreement with the standard UCM hypothesis. In contrast, the second optimum internal model, in which the stiffness is prescribed, displays the good variability of speech (at least, in the reasonable range of stiffness) and is in agreement with the more recent versions of the uncontrolled manifold hypothesis (UCM). There is also a rich clinical literature on internal models including work from John Krakauer, [8] Pietro Mazzoni, Maurice A. Smith, Kurt Thoroughman, Joern Diedrichsen, and Amy Bastian.

See also

Related Research Articles

Control theory is a field of control engineering and applied mathematics that deals with the control of dynamical systems in engineered processes and machines. The objective is to develop a model or algorithm governing the application of system inputs to drive the system to a desired state, while minimizing any delay, overshoot, or steady-state error and ensuring a level of control stability; often with the aim to achieve a degree of optimality.

A proportional–integral–derivative controller is a control loop mechanism employing feedback that is widely used in industrial control systems and a variety of other applications requiring continuously modulated control. A PID controller continuously calculates an error value as the difference between a desired setpoint (SP) and a measured process variable (PV) and applies a correction based on proportional, integral, and derivative terms, hence the name.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Control system</span> System that manages the behavior of other systems

A control system manages, commands, directs, or regulates the behavior of other devices or systems using control loops. It can range from a single home heating controller using a thermostat controlling a domestic boiler to large industrial control systems which are used for controlling processes or machines. The control systems are designed via control engineering process.

In control engineering, a servomechanism, usually shortened to servo, is an automatic device that uses error-sensing negative feedback to correct the action of a mechanism. In displacement-controlled applications, it usually includes a built-in encoder or other position feedback mechanism to ensure the output is achieving the desired effect.

In control theory, an open-loop controller, also called a non-feedback controller, is a control loop part of a control system in which the control action is independent of the "process output", which is the process variable that is being controlled. It does not use feedback to determine if its output has achieved the desired goal of the input command or process setpoint.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Feed forward (control)</span> Control paradigm in which errors are measured before they can affect a system

A feed forward is an element or pathway within a control system that passes a controlling signal from a source in its external environment to a load elsewhere in its external environment. This is often a command signal from an external operator.

Inverse dynamics is an inverse problem. It commonly refers to either inverse rigid body dynamics or inverse structural dynamics. Inverse rigid-body dynamics is a method for computing forces and/or moments of force (torques) based on the kinematics (motion) of a body and the body's inertial properties. Typically it uses link-segment models to represent the mechanical behaviour of interconnected segments, such as the limbs of humans or animals or the joint extensions of robots, where given the kinematics of the various parts, inverse dynamics derives the minimum forces and moments responsible for the individual movements. In practice, inverse dynamics computes these internal moments and forces from measurements of the motion of limbs and external forces such as ground reaction forces, under a special set of assumptions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Servomotor</span> Type of motor

A servomotor is a rotary actuator or linear actuator that allows for precise control of angular or linear position, velocity, and acceleration. It consists of a suitable motor coupled to a sensor for position feedback. It also requires a relatively sophisticated controller, often a dedicated module designed specifically for use with servomotors.

Motor control is the regulation of movement in organisms that possess a nervous system. Motor control includes reflexes as well as directed movement.

In physiology, motor coordination is the orchestrated movement of multiple body parts as required to accomplish intended actions, like walking. This coordination is achieved by adjusting kinematic and kinetic parameters associated with each body part involved in the intended movement. The modifications of these parameters typically relies on sensory feedback from one or more sensory modalities, such as proprioception and vision.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Servo drive</span> Electronic amplifier used to power electric servomechanisms

A servo drive is an electronic amplifier used to power electric servomechanisms.

In turbocharged internal combustion engines, a boost controller is a device sometimes used to increase the boost pressure produced by the turbocharger. It achieves this by reducing the boost pressure seen by the wastegate.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ballbot</span> Mobile robot design

A ball balancing robot also known as a ballbot is a dynamically-stable mobile robot designed to balance on a single spherical wheel. Through its single contact point with the ground, a ballbot is omnidirectional and thus exceptionally agile, maneuverable and organic in motion compared to other ground vehicles. Its dynamic stability enables improved navigability in narrow, crowded and dynamic environments. The ballbot works on the same principle as that of an inverted pendulum.

Control reconfiguration is an active approach in control theory to achieve fault-tolerant control for dynamic systems. It is used when severe faults, such as actuator or sensor outages, cause a break-up of the control loop, which must be restructured to prevent failure at the system level. In addition to loop restructuring, the controller parameters must be adjusted to accommodate changed plant dynamics. Control reconfiguration is a building block toward increasing the dependability of systems under feedback control.

In physiology, an efference copy or efferent copy is an internal copy of an outflowing (efferent), movement-producing signal generated by an organism's motor system. It can be collated with the (reafferent) sensory input that results from the agent's movement, enabling a comparison of actual movement with desired movement, and a shielding of perception from particular self-induced effects on the sensory input to achieve perceptual stability. Together with internal models, efference copies can serve to enable the brain to predict the effects of an action.

A motor program is an abstract metaphor of the central organization of movement and control of the many degrees of freedom involved in performing an action.p. 182 Signals transmitted through efferent and afferent pathways allow the central nervous system to anticipate, plan or guide movement. Evidence for the concept of motor programs include the following:p. 182

Sensory-motor coupling is the coupling or integration of the sensory system and motor system. Sensorimotor integration is not a static process. For a given stimulus, there is no one single motor command. "Neural responses at almost every stage of a sensorimotor pathway are modified at short and long timescales by biophysical and synaptic processes, recurrent and feedback connections, and learning, as well as many other internal and external variables".

In neuroscience and motor control, the degrees of freedom problem or motor equivalence problem states that there are multiple ways for humans or animals to perform a movement in order to achieve the same goal. In other words, under normal circumstances, no simple one-to-one correspondence exists between a motor problem and a motor solution to the problem. The motor equivalence problem was first formulated by the Russian neurophysiologist Nikolai Bernstein: "It is clear that the basic difficulties for co-ordination consist precisely in the extreme abundance of degrees of freedom, with which the [nervous] centre is not at first in a position to deal."

Impedance control is an approach to dynamic control relating force and position. It is often used in applications where a manipulator interacts with its environment and the force position relation is of concern. Examples of such applications include humans interacting with robots, where the force produced by the human relates to how fast the robot should move/stop. Simpler control methods, such as position control or torque control, perform poorly when the manipulator experiences contacts. Thus impedance control is commonly used in these settings.

The emulation theory of representation postulates that there are multiple internal modeling circuitries in the brain referred to as emulators. These emulators mimic the input-output patterns of many cognitive operations including action, perception, and imagery. Often running in parallel, these emulators provide resultant feedback in the form of mock sensory signals of a motor command with less delay than sensors. These forward models receive efference copies of input motor commands being sent to the body and the resulting output sensory signals. Emulators are continually updating so as to give the most accurate anticipatory signal following motor inputs.

References

  1. ↑ B. A. Francis and W. M. Wonham, "The internal model principle of control theory", Automatica12 (1976) 457–465.
  2. ↑ Roger C. Conant and W. Ross Ashby, "Every good regulator of a system must be a model of that system", International Journal of Systems Science vol 1 (1970), 89–97.
  3. ↑ Jan Swevers, "Internal model control (IMC) Archived 2017-08-30 at the Wayback Machine ", 2006
  4. ↑ Perry Y. Li, "Internal Model Principle and Repetitive Control"
  5. ↑ Kawato, M (1999). "Internal models for motor control and trajectory planning". Current Opinion in Neurobiology. 9 (6): 718–727. doi:10.1016/S0959-4388(99)00028-8. PMID   10607637. S2CID   878792.
  6. ↑ Also with simulated speech articulators, such as biomechanical tongue models (BTM).
  7. ↑ Iaroslav Blagouchine and Eric Moreau. Control of a Speech Robot via an Optimum Neural-Network-Based Internal Model with Constraints. IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 142—159, February 2010.
  8. ↑ "Sensory Prediction Errors Drive Cerebellum-Dependent Adaptation of Reaching", Tseng, Diedrichsen, Krakauer, et al., Journal of Neurophysiology, 98:54-62, May 16, 2007
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.