IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0278961.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A bicycle can be balanced by stochastic optimal feedback control but only with accurate speed estimates

Author

Listed:
  • Eric Maris

Abstract

Balancing a bicycle is typical for the balance control humans perform as a part of a whole range of behaviors (walking, running, skating, skiing, etc.). This paper presents a general model of balance control and applies it to the balancing of a bicycle. Balance control has both a physics (mechanics) and a neurobiological component. The physics component pertains to the laws that govern the movements of the rider and his bicycle, and the neurobiological component pertains to the mechanisms via which the central nervous system (CNS) uses these laws for balance control. This paper presents a computational model of this neurobiological component, based on the theory of stochastic optimal feedback control (OFC). The central concept in this model is a computational system, implemented in the CNS, that controls a mechanical system outside the CNS. This computational system uses an internal model to calculate optimal control actions as specified by the theory of stochastic OFC. For the computational model to be plausible, it must be robust to at least two inevitable inaccuracies: (1) model parameters that the CNS learns slowly from interactions with the CNS-attached body and bicycle (i.e., the internal noise covariance matrices), and (2) model parameters that depend on unreliable sensory input (i.e., movement speed). By means of simulations, I demonstrate that this model can balance a bicycle under realistic conditions and is robust to inaccuracies in the learned sensorimotor noise characteristics. However, the model is not robust to inaccuracies in the movement speed estimates. This has important implications for the plausibility of stochastic OFC as a model for motor control.

Suggested Citation

  • Eric Maris, 2023. "A bicycle can be balanced by stochastic optimal feedback control but only with accurate speed estimates," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(2), pages 1-33, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0278961
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0278961
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0278961
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0278961&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0278961?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Arne J Nagengast & Daniel A Braun & Daniel M Wolpert, 2010. "Risk-Sensitive Optimal Feedback Control Accounts for Sensorimotor Behavior under Uncertainty," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(7), pages 1-15, July.
    2. repec:plo:pcbi00:1000419 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Paul L. Gribble & Stephen H. Scott, 2002. "Overlap of internal models in motor cortex for mechanical loads during reaching," Nature, Nature, vol. 417(6892), pages 938-941, June.
    4. Konrad P. Körding & Daniel M. Wolpert, 2004. "Bayesian integration in sensorimotor learning," Nature, Nature, vol. 427(6971), pages 244-247, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jordi Grau-Moya & Pedro A Ortega & Daniel A Braun, 2016. "Decision-Making under Ambiguity Is Modulated by Visual Framing, but Not by Motor vs. Non-Motor Context. Experiments and an Information-Theoretic Ambiguity Model," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(4), pages 1-21, April.
    2. Joshua G A Cashaback & Christopher K Lao & Dimitrios J Palidis & Susan K Coltman & Heather R McGregor & Paul L Gribble, 2019. "The gradient of the reinforcement landscape influences sensorimotor learning," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(3), pages 1-27, March.
    3. Luigi Acerbi & Sethu Vijayakumar & Daniel M Wolpert, 2017. "Target Uncertainty Mediates Sensorimotor Error Correction," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(1), pages 1-21, January.
    4. Jordi Grau-Moya & Pedro A Ortega & Daniel A Braun, 2012. "Risk-Sensitivity in Bayesian Sensorimotor Integration," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(9), pages 1-7, September.
    5. Todd E Hudson & Laurence T Maloney & Michael S Landy, 2008. "Optimal Compensation for Temporal Uncertainty in Movement Planning," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(7), pages 1-9, July.
    6. Shih-Wei Wu & Maria F Dal Martello & Laurence T Maloney, 2009. "Sub-Optimal Allocation of Time in Sequential Movements," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(12), pages 1-13, December.
    7. Loreen Hertäg & Katharina A. Wilmes & Claudia Clopath, 2025. "Uncertainty estimation with prediction-error circuits," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 16(1), pages 1-15, December.
    8. Leopold Zizlsperger & Thomas Sauvigny & Thomas Haarmeier, 2012. "Selective Attention Increases Choice Certainty in Human Decision Making," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(7), pages 1-9, July.
    9. Geonhui Lee & Woong Choi & Hanjin Jo & Wookhyun Park & Jaehyo Kim, 2020. "Analysis of motor control strategy for frontal and sagittal planes of circular tracking movements using visual feedback noise from velocity change and depth information," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(11), pages 1-22, November.
    10. Wen-Hao Zhang & Si Wu & Krešimir Josić & Brent Doiron, 2023. "Sampling-based Bayesian inference in recurrent circuits of stochastic spiking neurons," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-19, December.
    11. Lionel Rigoux & Emmanuel Guigon, 2012. "A Model of Reward- and Effort-Based Optimal Decision Making and Motor Control," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(10), pages 1-13, October.
    12. repec:plo:pone00:0119187 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Adam N Sanborn & Ulrik R Beierholm, 2016. "Fast and Accurate Learning When Making Discrete Numerical Estimates," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(4), pages 1-28, April.
    14. Seth W. Egger & Stephen G. Lisberger, 2022. "Neural structure of a sensory decoder for motor control," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-13, December.
    15. Tim Genewein & Eduard Hez & Zeynab Razzaghpanah & Daniel A Braun, 2015. "Structure Learning in Bayesian Sensorimotor Integration," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(8), pages 1-27, August.
    16. Ofri Raviv & Merav Ahissar & Yonatan Loewenstein, 2012. "How Recent History Affects Perception: The Normative Approach and Its Heuristic Approximation," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(10), pages 1-10, October.
    17. Brocas, Isabelle & Carrillo, Juan D., 2012. "From perception to action: An economic model of brain processes," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 81-103.
    18. Jennifer Laura Lee & Wei Ji Ma, 2021. "Point-estimating observer models for latent cause detection," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(10), pages 1-29, October.
    19. Max Berniker & Martin Voss & Konrad Kording, 2010. "Learning Priors for Bayesian Computations in the Nervous System," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(9), pages 1-9, September.
    20. Carrillo, Juan & Brocas, Isabelle, 2007. "Reason, Emotion and Information Processing in the Brain," CEPR Discussion Papers 6535, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    21. Jannes Jegminat & Maya A Jastrzębowska & Matthew V Pachai & Michael H Herzog & Jean-Pascal Pfister, 2020. "Bayesian regression explains how human participants handle parameter uncertainty," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(5), pages 1-23, May.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0278961. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.