Cogn Comput (2012) 4:549–562
DOI 10.1007/s12559-012-9160-5
Physiological LQR Design for Postural Control Coordination
of Sit-to-Stand Movement
Asif Mahmood Mughal • Kamran Iqbal
Received: 21 May 2011 / Accepted: 26 June 2012 / Published online: 10 July 2012
Ó Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012
Abstract The neurophysiological mechanisms involved
in postural stabilization are not well understood. Active and
passive mechanisms at muscle and spinal levels as well as
visual and vestibular processes are known to contribute
toward postural stabilization and coordination of voluntary
movement. The motivation for this research is to use a
modeling–simulation framework to achieve two aims:
(a) to ascertain viability of a physiologically motivated
optimal controller design in the maintenance of posture and
coordination of voluntary movement and (b) to study the
relative contribution from active (feedforward) and passive
(feedback) mechanisms in the execution of said movement.
We employ a multi-segment sagittal model built on ana-
tomical proportions with three degrees of freedom,
including rotation at the ankle, knee, and hip joints. The
behavior of the biomechanical model is controlled by an
optimal linear quadratic regulator whose state and control
weights are derived from physiological considerations.
Representative postural and voluntary movements are
simulated to illustrate the analysis–synthesis framework of
biomechanical movement. Our analytical and simulation
results support an active–passive model of postural stabil-
ization and movement coordination. Besides expanding our
understanding of the physiological stabilization processes
in the body, the insight gained from this study promotes
A. M. Mughal (&)
Department of Applied Science, University of Arkansas at Little
Rock, Little Rock, AR, USA
e-mail: asifmahmoodmughal@gmail.com
K. Iqbal
Department of Systems Engineering, University of Arkansas
at Little Rock, Little Rock, AR, USA
e-mail: kxiqbal@ualr.edu
awareness of the existence of optimizing controllers in the
central nervous system.
Keywords Biomechanical modeling  Optimal control 
Physiological optimization  Postural stabilization 
Movement coordination
Introduction
The role and function of the central nervous system (CNS),
and the interaction of different orientation senses in pos-
tural stabilization are not well understood [1, 2]. In the
context of this study, postural stabilization refers to our
ability to maintain standing posture amid internal and
external perturbations. Human sagittal biomechanics for
posture control have often been compared to an inverted
pendulum [3, 4]. This unstable structure is supported over a
small base of support (BOS), that is, the area under two
feet. Further, postural stabilization is aided by the presence
of somatosensory and proprioceptive processes in the body.
Investigators have reported that standing humans, when
perturbed by forward–backward translation of a moving
support surface and instructed not to move their feet, typ-
ically respond by using a combination of ‘ankle’ and/or
‘hip’ strategies in the sagittal plane [5, 6]. Further, the
ankle strategy is adopted for small perturbations and may
be combined with hip strategy for larger perturbations; still,
larger perturbations elicit stepping and grasping responses
[7].
Winter et al. [8] have studied the relationship of the
center of mass (COM, controlled variable) and the center
of pressure (COP, controlling variable) during body sway
through the use of a lightly damped inverted pendulum
model. The authors hypothesized that the close phase
123
550
relationship between COM and COP negates the presence
of reactive processes in balance control. This prompted the
authors to consider a stiffness-only model, whose stiffness
constant is set by CNS and is sufficient to control the large
inertial load against the gravitational forces. Their view of
postural stabilization as a purely passive mechanism is
strengthened by the consideration that the latencies in the
motor servo loop with the low-pass characteristics of the
biological muscle tend to limit the effectiveness of active
and reactive control mechanisms. Existence and involve-
ment of optimal control processes in postural stabilization
and movement coordination has been widely acknowl-
edged by researchers [9–12]. Todorov and Jordan [9] have
stated that emergent properties of optimal feedback control
produced a certain desirable behavioral richness in the case
of a multi-joint arm model. The authors advanced a mini-
mal intervention principle, under which deviations from the
average trajectory were corrected only when they inter-
fered with task performance. Sachaal and Schweighofer
[10] have similarly proposed a stochastic optimal control
model of human brain. According to the authors, noise is
predominant in the nervous system, and to generate smooth
movements, CNS movement strategy minimizes the effect
of noise on the motor output. Kuo [12] has explicitly
considered the control of balance based on optimal control
principles. The author postulates that the optimal control
model for the control of balance appears to serve as an
ideal framework to study CNS responses with ambiguous
sensory input. Further, parameterization of state and con-
trol weightings may be used to implement physically
meaningful objectives subject to constraints.
Biomechanical models have been frequently employed
by researchers in support of laboratory studies to test the-
ories of motor control and learning. Models with various
complexities and detail have been used in the literature to
simulate postural control and coordination of voluntary
movement [8, 12–18]. According to Kuo [12], control of
balance in human upright standing is particularly well
suited for modeling and is also a popular experimental
paradigm. Furthermore, modeling in this paradigm (dis-
turbances to posture in the sagittal plane) is particularly
convenient, as the musculoskeletal dynamics can be line-
arized without significant impact on the simulation accu-
racy. Barin [16] has developed a multi-segment model of
human postural dynamics. Pai and Iqbal [17] have used an
inverted pendulum over moving foot model to investigate
slipping, sliding, and falling behavior. The authors have
demonstrated how overlapping feasible stability region
(FSR) in the COM position-velocity phase plane could be
exploited for postural control in unfamiliar environment.
Iqbal and Pai [18] have employed a four-segment biome-
chanical model to study optimization of movement termi-
nation and the role of knee joint in postural stabilization.
123
Cogn Comput (2012) 4:549–562
Sit-to-stand (STS) task offers an example of an ordinary
but skilled movement that has been extensively studied by
researchers [19–21]. Analysis of laboratory data shows that
STS movement comprises two main phases: the forward
thrust phase and the extension phase. Kerr et al. [19] have
further divided the kinematics of movement into regions of
flexion momentum, momentum transfer, lift off, and
extension phases. They collected data from seat off to
termination from 50 healthy males and females (age, 2–78)
and provided mean time of 1.907 ± 0.057 s. STS move-
ment terminates when hip velocity reaches zero and set-
tling of movement in this time requires higher torque.
Researchers have also discussed strategy-related issues of
STS transfer for movement coordination of joints and the
constraints involved in movement coordination [20, 21].
We have previously studied the regulation of STS move-
ment using a fuzzy biomechanical model controlled by a
fuzzy optimal linear quadratic regulator (LQR)-based
controller using Gaussian and triangular membership
functions [22]. Further, we have compared and contrasted
the performance of H2 and H? robust and optimal control
techniques in the coordination of STS movement [23].
However, this modeling scheme takes more time for set-
tlement ranging from 4 to 10 s for movement termination.
A similar sagittal plane modeling scheme was studied by
Jo and Massaquoi [24] and bipedal walking model in [25].
In this study with recurrent PID controller for terminal
movement, researchers achieved energy efficiency with
muscular co-activation and proprioceptive force feedback.
The controllers used in those studies were, however, not
derived from physiological considerations. It can be
hypothesized that optimal controllers based on physiolog-
ical considerations would be better representative of the
underlying CNS decision-making processes. The aim of
this paper is to employ a modeling–simulation paradigm to
study the performance of an optimal controller derived
from physiological cost consideration for regulation of
postural and voluntary STS movement. We based upon two
physiological functions, kinematic and kinetic variables for
derivations of control gains. In addition, we aim to study
the involvement of active (feedforward) and passive
(feedback) torques in the performance of said movements.
We presented initial results in [26] with active and passive
feedback for postural balance and STS stabilization. We
note that these can be individually varied to study their
relative contribution toward postural stabilization and
movement coordination. Further, we now introduce phys-
iological cost optimization for controller synthesis in pas-
sive torques, whereby we use sensitivity functions of
physiological variables as weights in the optimization
algorithm.
Some researchers [5, 6, 27, 28] have preferred to use
simpler one and/or two segment models for investigation of
Cogn Comput (2012) 4:549–562 551

postural control in humans. On the basis of these studies, In the next section, we provide mathematical formula-
researchers have proposed the existence of discrete ‘ankle’ tion of the sagittal plane model with dynamic equations.
and/or ‘hip’ strategies to maintain postural balance. This Then, we provide the mathematical equations for control-
view of postural stabilization appears to discount the role ling the system with kinematic variables, that is, CoM, and
of knee joint in postural stabilization. Iqbal and Pai [18] kinetic variables, that is, GRF. Later, we showed the sim-
have earlier studied the role of knee joint in postural ulation results of the scheme followed by discussion and
reactions and determined that motion at the knee joint conclusion.
delivered a small but recognizable benefit to the termina-
tion of total body forward movement. Keshner and Allum
[29] have similarly determined that in many postural per- Formulation of the Multi-segment Biomechanical
turbations, the body moves as a multi-link structure with Model
extensive knee movements.
Optimal control of human postural and voluntary move- The mechanics of the human body in the performance of
ment has been considered by other researchers. For example, postural and voluntary movement is modeled as a multi-
Kuo [12] has proposed optimal control of postural balance segment structure with joint torque actuation at the ankle,
following BOS perturbations. According to the author, linear knee, and hip joints. More specifically, a four-segment
quadratic control provided a means to use relatively few rigid-body model connected by single-degree-of-freedom
parameters to describe a large number of gains, and it joints is used to represent sagittal plane mechanics (Fig. 1).
guaranteed a large degree of robustness to time delays. Kuo
[13] further addressed combining optimal state estimation
with feedback control in a model of human postural balance.
According to authors, inertial coupling between body seg-
ments discounted the possibility of using purely local feed-
back for postural balance. Furthermore, sensing of kinematic
positions and velocities of all body segments appeared to l3
constitute the minimal informational set necessary for pos-
tural stabilization. Thus, model-based studies have tended to I3
favor full state feedback for computer simulation of postural m3g
control and voluntary movement.
θ3
In this context, we also note that since both the joint
angular positions and velocities are being used as state
variables, the full state feedback control successfully rep- τ3
resents viscoelasticity at individual joints. In the control l2
theoretic literature, this is termed as proportional-deriva- I2
tive (PD) control. It is well known that such control imparts
m2g
a certain phase-lead to the closed-loop system, thus making θ2
its behavior anticipatory. We may, therefore, conclude that τ2
the optimal PD type control used in our study implicitly
includes functional elements of the motor servo loop that
promote postural stability, though these were not explicitly
modeled in the mathematical formulation. Jo and Massa- I1
l1
quoi [24, 25] provided results of upright balance and m1g
walking with cerebellum stabilization and cerebrocer-
ebello-spinomuscular interaction for sagittal plane models. θ1
In these studies muscular interactions and proprioceptive
feedbacks motivate toward an energy efficient control τ1
x
scheme. In this paper, we are studying an optimal control
scheme with optimality condition reaches through qua- x
dratic indices, that is, appropriate selections of Q and R Fy Fx
matrices. The selection of Q and R matrices based upon
lf
kinematic variables validates the finding in [20, 21] and
also confirms the controller scheme shows better results Fig. 1 Multi-segment biomechanical model comprising foot, leg,
with kinematic variables than with kinetic variables. thigh, and head, arm, and trunk (HAT) segments

123
552
The segments represent a bilateral symmetrical arrange-
ment of the feet, legs, thighs, and head–arm–trunk (HAT).
The CNS commands and active force generation in the
muscle are represented by torques applied at the ankle,
knee, and hip joints. The body segment parameters given in
Table 1, that is, the segment length, mass, center of gravity,
and moment of inertia, are based on average anatomical
proportions [27]. The length of the stationary foot segment
defines the BOS in the anterior–posterior direction, where
it may be noted that for static postural stability, COM of
the body must be restricted to the BOS [18, 19].
Dynamic Equations of the Model
The dynamical equations of the multi-segment biome-
chanical model are nonlinear and may be symbolically
represented as:
 
DðhÞ€h þ H h; h_ h_ þ GðhÞ ¼ s
*
ð1Þ
where h is a vector representing the DOF of the model;
DðhÞ€ _ h,
h, Hðh; hÞ _ and GðhÞ are, respectively, the inertial,
Coriolis, and gravitational components of the generalized
torques acting on the model (see ‘Appendix’). Let si ,
i = 1–3, define the joint torques acting at the ankle, knee,
and hip joints; then, the input torque vector in (1) is defined
as s ¼ ½ s1  s2 s2  s3 s3 T where ‘T’ denotes the
*
matrix transpose operation. The joint torques each
comprise a feedforward and a feedback component, that
is, s ¼ sfb þ sff , where the feedforward component, sff ;
represents the descending commands that are task specific,
and the feedback component, sfb ; represents the passive
viscoelasticity in the musculo-tendon structures surround-
ing the joints. This feedback torque is generated by CNS as
a result of muscular stretches required for movement. The
feedforward component, sff , also ensures that static equi-
librium at the standing posture and at discrete points along
a nominal reference trajectory, href , is maintained. Using
joint angular positions, h; and angular velocities, h; _ as the
state variables, the dynamic equation (1) can be recast into
the state variable form as:
h   i minimal contribution in the control effort uðtÞ; which is
€
h ¼ D1 ðhÞ H h; h_ h_  GðhÞ þ s
*
ð2Þ
Eqs (1) and (2) represent a nonlinear system of equations in
angular and velocity variables. This system can be linearized
by Taylor series approximation around an equilibrium point as
follows: Let he represent the equilibrium position, Dh ¼
h  he represent the perturbation from the equilibrium, and
* *
s ¼ s  se represent the torque perturbation from the static
*
equilibrium torques, where se ¼ Gðhe Þ; then, the linearized
system of dynamic equations is given as:
123
Cogn Comput (2012) 4:549–562
 !

€ 1 oG 0
Dh ¼ ½Dðhe Þ Dh þ s ð3Þ
ox x¼xe
In this study, we are using standing position as a stale
equilibrium point at which Eq. (3) is linearized. Equation 4
shows the state vector for linearization; it has all three
angles at p=2 with zero velocities and zero joint torques.
xe ¼ ½ p=2 p=2 p=2 0 0 0  ð4Þ
The linearized system of dynamic equations is
represented in the usual state space form given as:
_ ¼ AxðtÞ þ BuðtÞ
xðtÞ
   
0 I 0 ð5Þ
A¼ B¼
A1 0 B1
 T
where x ¼ Dh1 Dh2 Dh3 Dh_ 1 Dh_ 2 Dh_ 3 and A
and B matrices are obtained by differentiating (2) with
respect to the state and input variables, respectively, and
computed at the equilibrium point. The linearized model,
(3), represents the behavior of the system in the small
neighborhood of the defined equilibrium posture. For the
3-DOF presented here, A is a 6 9 6 matrix, B is a 6 9 3
0
matrix, and uðtÞ ¼ s represents the input torque variations
with respect to the equilibrium torques. Feedback control
of the posture is required for stable stance and coordination
of body movement. The pair (A,B) have full-rank con-
trollability matrix, which means that all three joint torques
are controllable through feedback of state vector.
Physiologically Motivated Optimal Controller Design
*
The controlled input, s, in (1) above represents the torques
generated at the ankle, knee, and hip joints in response to
the muscle commands issued by the CNS that are regulated
through spinal reflexes in the physiological system [28].
The corresponding control input uðtÞ in (4) excludes the
descending commands responsible for trajectory generation
due to linearization and represents purely the reactive
processes and passive stiffness. However, for the purposes
of this study, we assume the spinal reflexes to have a
assumed to result purely due to passive stiffness of the
muscle-joint structures. It is noted that the physiological
neural transmission delays are irrelevant in this paradigm.
In the modeling environment, this passive torque is gen-
erated via feedback of state variables through suitable
feedback gains. We select LQR-based controller design for
the control of biomechanical model due to its optimizing
energy for the system through quadratic indices. The state
weighting Q and input weighting R matrices for the LQR
design can be chosen to get required performance on
Cogn Comput (2012) 4:549–562 553

control effort, initial and final positions, and the desired
dynamic and steady-state responses. We note that the
optimal steady-state LQR design naturally develops into a
proportional-derivative (PD) controller that has been sug-
gested by some researchers for control of postural move-
ments [18]. In the general model of a PD controller, the
feedback torque sfb is represented as sum of two compo-
nents: a position-dependent component and a velocity-
dependent component, that is,
Scholz, and Schöner [20, 21] who have studied the role of
COM-based constraints in the coordination of STS move-
ment, we will explore the use of the COM equations to
generate state weighting matrix Q. In the first attempt, we
suggest using the sensitivity functions of the COM position
with respect to the degrees of freedom (joint angles) as the
weights. The horizontal (anterior–posterior) COM position
and velocity in the case of multi-segment model are given
as:

sfb ¼ Kp h  href  Kv h_ ð6Þ P

3
fi cos xi  cmf
i¼1
where we note that the above input torques represent the xCOM ¼ lf  a þ
P
3
passive (feedback) component of the overall joint torques m þ mf
applied to the biomechanical model. Two feedback gain i¼1
ð11Þ
matrices Kp and Kv represent the respective gains for posi- P
3
fi ðsin xi Þ  xiþ3
tion and velocity terms. Jo and Massaquoi [24, 25] repre- i
vxCOM ¼
sented the same equation for passive muscular force, but in P
3
this case, we are representing it for joint torques applied by m þ mf
i¼1
CNS. Since the reference velocities at equilibrium point are
zero, then there is no separate need for representation of h_ e . where lf and mf represent the length and mass of the foot,
The active (feedforward) component is computed such as to and a, b, c represent the foot parameters related to the
balance the gravitational torques at the ankle, knee, and hip position of the ankle [18], and fi are corresponding grav-
joints, along the desired reference trajectory. itational components in each segments(see ‘Appendix’).
The optimal control effort for infinite horizon LQR The sensitivity derivates of the COM position and
design is computed from the unique symmetric positive velocity corresponding to joint angles Dh; and joint
definite solution matrix M to the following algebraic velocities Dh, _ computed at the standing posture,
xe ¼ ½ =2 0 p=2 0 0 0  , produce the state
p T
Riccati equation (ARE):
weights in Q. Let qii represent the diagonal terms in the
MA þ AT M  MBR1 BT M þ Q ¼ 0 ð7Þ Q matrix; then, the weights for position and velocity states
The corresponding LQR controller gain matrix is given are assigned as follows:
 
as: oxCOM 2

qii ¼   ði ¼ 1; . . .; 3Þ
KLQR ¼ R1 BT M ð8Þ oxi x¼xe ;u¼ue
  ð12Þ
The optimal joint torques for the biomechanical model ovxCOM 2

qii ¼   ði ¼ 4; . . .; 6Þ
in (4) are computed as: ox  i x¼xe ;u¼ue

uðtÞ ¼ KLQR  xðtÞ ð9Þ
Finally, the closed-loop system dynamics are given as:
_ ¼ ðA  BR1 BT MÞxðtÞ
xðtÞ ð10Þ
Physiological LQR Controller Design
The state weighting matrix Q and the input weighting
matrix R are the key elements of the optimal controller
design. These are normally selected as diagonal matrices,
where the diagonal terms can be arbitrarily selected for the
The cross-diagonal terms in the Q matrix are selected as
zero for independent minimization of position and velocity
errors. We note that the COM sensitivity functions provide
weights for the state variables, but not for the input
variables. In this case, the input weighting R can be
arbitrarily selected to minimize maximum joint torque.
Another variable that has the potential to be useful for
physiological cost optimization is the GRF. The expression
for the horizontal GRF is given as:
X
3

best response based on trial and error. In the case of the Fx ¼ fi x€i sin xi þ x_2i cos xi ð13Þ
i¼1
biomechanical model, however, we desire that the selection
of the optimal controller weights should relate to the Differentiating and linearizing the horizontal GRF at the
physiological phenomena. Two physiological criteria, that standing posture generates the desired sensitivity functions.
is, the COM and the ground reaction force (GRF), are The diagonal terms of Q and R matrices are accordingly
considered for this purpose. Taking a cue from Resiman, assigned as:

123
554 Cogn Comput (2012) 4:549–562

 2 ct
 x as: xR ðtÞ ¼ 1e
1þect , or alternatively xR ðtÞ can be obtained
qii ¼ oF
oxi  ði ¼ 1; . . .; 3Þ;
 x¼x e ;u¼ue from the output of a stable open-loop linear system. In ref
 x 2
qii ¼ oF ði ¼ 4; . . .; 6Þ ð14Þ [30], we have proposed a third-order linear model, whose
oxi 
 2x¼xe ;u¼ue output resembles the experimental data for the STS
 x
rii ¼ oF
osi  ði ¼ 1; . . .; 3Þ maneuver. This reference trajectory model is given as
x¼xe ;u¼ue
follows: x_ R ¼ AR xR , where AR is selected as open-loop
where we note that the sensitivity functions in the case of stable matrix. The following AR matrix was proposed in
GRF produce the diagonal elements in Q as well as R [30] to generate the reference trajectories for postural
matrices for optimization. Finally, a hybrid LQR design stabilization.
scheme may be considered that includes a combination of 2 3
0 1 0
COM- and GRF-based optimization for state and input
AR ¼ 4 0 0 1 5 ð17Þ
weighting matrices. The hybrid state weighting matrix, Qh ; 0 2 1
and input weighting matrix, Rh ; will be selected as:
In this study, we will use their model for reference
Qh ¼ QCoM þ QGRF ; Rh ¼ RGRF ð15Þ
trajectory generation to construct segment trajectories for
both the postural and voluntary STS movements. As t ! 1
Simulation of Postural and Voluntary Movement then xR ðtÞ ! 1 by employing initial conditions, trajectories
will be generated accordingly as given in [30].
We conducted computer simulations of representative
postural and voluntary movements to ascertain the viability
of our physiological LQR controller for the multi-segment Simulation of Postural Movement
biomechanical model. The simulation results are based on
the nonlinear dynamic model in (1–2) with linear optimal Typically, in a postural adjustment initiated in response to
controller in (9). The overall block diagram for simulation BOS perturbation, the COM of the body is located behind
of postural and voluntary movement is shown in Fig. 2. the heel at movement initiation. The COM would normally
have a nonzero anterior velocity at movement initiation
Reference Trajectories for Movement Simulation that could be translated into nonzero individual joint
angular velocities. However, in order to include the static
In order to simulate a point-to-point movement, it is positions in the evaluation of controller performance, we
desired that a tracking model with reference trajectory choose to have zero initial COM anterior velocity at
input be employed. The feedback in a tracking model movement initiation. This posture represents a person
ensures that errors with respect to an assumed reference leaning with the wall in a static position, that is, no
trajectory go to zero with time. We propose the following velocities at the joint. The upright standing posture is a
general form of the individual joint reference trajectories stable equilibrium position, at which model is linearized,
for postural and voluntary movement: and we follow with the assumption that initial and final
velocities are zero in our simulation. Introducing initial
hRef ðtÞ ¼ x0 þ ðxf  x0 Þ  xR ðtÞ ð16Þ velocities means to accommodate the reaction forces into
where x0 and xf define the initial and final posture in terms the model (such as seat reaction force). The intended
of joint angles, and xR ðtÞ is either a sigmoid function given postural movement terminates with the COM positioned
over the BOS, and with zero COM anterior velocity.
Without loss of generality, we assume the terminal position
θ(t) to be the stance position with the COM positioned over the
Nonlinear ankle joint. This position is also picked to minimize the
Model Reference
+ control effort at movement termination. The selected initial
Trajectories
and final positions for postural movement are sketched in
u(t) xr(t) Fig. 3. For illustration, the starting position for postural
Passive
movement is selected as [1.37, 1.47, 1.42] rad. The COM at
Controller x(t)
movement initiation is located at about 35 % (of foot
+
length, see Fig. 7) behind the heel. The movement termi-
Active nates with final joint angular positions at [1.57, 1.57, 1.57]
Controller rad.
Simulation of the nonlinear model (2), with active and
Fig. 2 Simulation block diagram for the biomechanical model passive torques generated using (8), shows a smooth stable

123
Cogn Comput (2012) 4:549–562 555

Fig. 3 a Initial position, x0, and b final position, xf, for the postural
movement
dynamic response from initial position x0 to final position xf.
Figure 4 shows the joint angle profiles for 4-s simulation of
the postural movement using optimal controllers derived
from COM, GRF, and hybrid design schemes. The joint
angular profiles are plotted in radians and are measured with
respect to the horizontal. There is observed initial opposite
direction in the hip and ankle movement; this is due to the
simplification of modeling and not introducing initial reac-
tion forces into the modeling. This phenomenon was studied
in ref [22] with initial velocities, which produces results that
follow reference trajectories very well but controller output
beyond the physiological limits. Figure 5 shows the net joint
torques generated during simulation of the assumed postural
movement. The maximum joint torques generated during
movement simulation were found to be [106, 46, 28] N-m in
the case of COM-based controller, [110, 47, 25] N-m in the
case of GRF-based controller, and [104, 43, 28] N-m in the
case of the hybrid controller. The knee and hip torques start
as extensor torques that later switch to flexor torques to aid
in movement termination. Finally, we note that the observed
maximum torque values are all within their physiological
limits.
On the basis of the simulation results for the postural
movement, COM-based optimal controller generated an
overall smoother (i.e., shape of profile angle) dynamic
response in the angular profiles for ankle, knee, and hip
joints. The GRF-based optimal controller generated rela-
tively faster response, which was less smooth at least in
case of knee joint. The hybrid design scheme demonstrated
the similar results like COM-based design in the angular
profiles, while also minimizing the torques at the ankle and
knee joints. Overall, the optimal controller with the Q
matrix derived from COM sensitivity functions and the R
matrix derived from GRF sensitivity functions appears to
give the best results in the case of postural movement.
Figure 6 shows the relative contribution from the active
and passive torques toward the execution of the postural
movement. We note that both active feedforward and
passive feedback torques settle to zero at movement ter-
mination. This is because no support is required in the
assumed stance position when the weight of the body is
supported over the ankle joint. While there is little varia-
tion in the ankle torque profiles, the passive knee torque is
about 20 % lower in the case of hybrid controller. The hip
torque exhibits maximum variation among the COM- and
GRF-based controllers. The passive torque in the case of
COM-based controller is about 80 % higher than the GRF

Ankle Knee Hip

1.65 1.64 1.58

1.62 1.56
1.6
1.54
1.6
1.55 1.52
1.58
Angular Profiles

1.5
1.5 1.56 CoM
1.48 GRF
1.54 Hybrid
1.45
1.46
1.52
1.4 1.44

1.5
1.42
1.35
1.48 1.4

1.3 1.46 1.38

0 2 4 0 2 4 0 2 4
time time time

Fig. 4 Joint angles in radians for the postural movement with COM-based design (solid), GRF-based design (dash), and hybrid design scheme
(dash dot). The joint angles are in radians measured from horizontal

123
556 Cogn Comput (2012) 4:549–562

Ankle Knee Hip

120 50 30

25
100 40

CoM
20
80 30
GRF
Hybrid
Net Torques

15

60 20

10

40 10
5

20 0
0

0 -10 -5
0 2 4 0 2 4 0 2 4
time time time

Fig. 5 Net joint torques (N-m) for the postural movement with COM-based design (solid), GRF-based design (dash), and hybrid design scheme
(dash dot)

controller and also reaches its peak later in time, which
shows that the relatively large deviation in the hip angular
profile (Fig. 4) takes longer to settle. The hybrid design
entails relatively lower passive torque contribution in the
case of knee joint and closely follows the COM design for
both ankle and hip joints. Finally, as observed from the
figure, significant passive torques were generated under the
various controller schemes used for postural movement.
Figure 7 shows the horizontal COM/COP position
(normalized by foot length) and the horizontal GRF
accompanying the postural movement. The normalized
COM and COP anterior positions show a smooth variation
from initial 35 % behind heel to the final ankle position
(20 % ahead of the heel). It is noted that the initial COP is
placed outside of the BOS due to zero initial conditions
assumed on joint angular velocities at movement initiation.

Ankle Knee Hip

100 50 25

CoM
90 45
GRF
Active (feed-forward) torque component

80 40 20 Hybrid

70 35

60 30 15

50 25

40 20 10

30 15

20 10 5

10 5

0 0 0
0 50 -10 0 10 20 30 -10 0 10 20
Passive (feedback) torque component

Fig. 6 Active versus passive torques for postural stabilization

123
Cogn Comput (2012) 4:549–562
Fig. 7 Normalized COM,
x-CoM
normalized COP, and horizontal 1.5
GRF accompanying postural
movement for the three
controller design schemes 1.4
1.3
CoM Profiles
1.2
1.1
1 1
0.9
0.8
0 2 4 0
time
We further note that following 5 % increase at the begin-
ning, COM and COP trajectories stay in phase over the
course of postural movement, which is in conformity with
the physiological observation [8]. The GRF excursions
were slightly higher in the case of GRF-based design as
compared to the COM controller, while the hybrid scheme
produces lower peaks in the GRF variable. In general, the
COM minimization scheme appears to be more effective in
controlling both the COM and the GRF behavior.
Simulation of Voluntary Movement
We used sit-to-stand (STS) movement as an example of
point-to-point voluntary movement to assess the perfor-
mance of the various controller design schemes. The
desired initial [(1.57, 0, 1.57) rad] and final [(1.57, 1.57,
1.57) rad] positions for the assumed STS movement are
sketched in Fig. 8. Similar to the postural movement, we
assumed zero initial joint angular velocities at the initiation
of STS movement. Further, it was assumed that the chair
Fig. 8 a Initial and b final position for the STS movement
557
Fx
x-CoP
1.5 20
CoM
GRF
1.4
Hybrid 15
CoM
GRF
Ground Reaction Forces
1.3
Hybrid
10
1.2
5
1.1
0
-5
0.9
0.8 -10
2 4 0 1 2 3 4
time time
lift off had taken place earlier and no chair and/or hand
reaction forces were taken into consideration.
As discussed above, coordination of voluntary movement
required specification of reference trajectories for the joint
angles. Figure 9 shows the resulting angular profiles from
simulation of STS movement for the three controller designs,
where the adopted joint reference trajectories for STS task
are also shown in the figure. As seen from the figure, COM-
based controller design produces joint trajectories that are in-
phase with the reference trajectories in the case of ankle and
knee joints, but not so in the case of hip joint. The joint
trajectories for the GRF-based design are in-phase with the
reference trajectories for both ankle and hip joints. We note
that the peak ankle joint variation is higher (2.5 times the
assumed reference trajectory value in the case of COM-
based design and about 4 times in the case of GRF design),
resulting in higher ankle settling times in the case of GRF
design. The same, however, is 50 % lower than the assumed
reference trajectory peak in the case of hip joint. Also, the
COM-based controller generated a hip trajectory that
appears to be out of phase with respect to the assumed ref-
erence trajectory for that joint. The hybrid design scheme
appears to provide the better responses between the COM-
and GEF-based schemes.
Figure 10 shows the net joint torques for the STS move-
ment. These results are recast into the active–passive torque
comparison in Fig. 11, where we observe that the active hip
torque for STS movement stays negative, that is, an extensor
torque; however, net hip torque shows initial flexion torque
followed by extension torque, which is required to facilitate
the movement in upward extension phase. We note that
though passive feedback torques are high for the STS
movement, their relative contribution toward overall effort is
comparable to the postural movement studied above. Also,
123
558 Cogn Comput (2012) 4:549–562

Fig. 9 Angular profiles (rads) Knee Hip

Ankle
for STS movement with COM- 1.6 1.6 2.1
based design (solid), GRF-based CoM
design (dash), hybrid scheme
1.5 1.4 2 GRF
(dash dot), and the reference
trajectories (light solid) Hybrid
1.4 1.2 Ref
1.9

1.3 1
1.8

Angular Profiles
1.2 0.8
1.7
1.1 0.6

1.6
1 0.4

1.5
0.9 0.2

0.8 0 1.4

0.7 -0.2 1.3

0 2 4 0 2 4 0 2 4
time time time

Fig. 10 Net joint torques (N-m) Ankle Knee Hip

for the STS movement with 450 350 60
COM-based design (solid), CoM
GRF-based design (dash), 400
300 GRF
hybrid scheme (dash dot) 40
Hybrid
350
250
300 20

200
250
Net Torques

200 150

-20
150
100

100 -40
50
50
-60
0
0

-50 -50 -80

0 2 4 0 2 4 0 2 4
time time time

from Fig. 11, the hybrid controller seems to generate smooth
transitions between the active and passive joint torques.
Figure 12 shows the COM/COP variation and the horizontal
GRF during STS movement. Finally, we observe that while
the COM-based controller does a good job of minimizing the
COM variation during STS movement, the GRF-based
controller appears to do a poor job of minimizing the hori-
zontal GRF. Once again we observe that following a slight
initial dip in COP, the COM and COP trajectories stay in
phase over the course of STS movement.
Discussion and Conclusion
This study investigated the physiological cost optimization
in the synthesis of LQR controller for simulation of pos-
tural and voluntary movement in the case of a four-segment
sagittal computational dynamic model. Further, we ana-
lyzed the relative contribution from active control (feed-
forward processes) and passive stiffness (feedback
processes) in the performance of the said movements. The
sagittal model used in this study comprised four rigid-body

123
Cogn Comput (2012) 4:549–562 559

Ankle Knee Hip

250 250 10 CoM
GRF
Hybrid
0
Active (feed-forward) torque component

200 200
-10

-20
150 150

-30

100 100
-40

-50
50 50

-60

0 0 -70
0 200 0 100 0 50 100
Passive (feedback) torque component

Fig. 11 Active versus passive torques for the STS movement

Fig. 12 Normalized COM Fx

x-CoM x-CoP
position and the horizontal GRF 2.6 4.5 400
for STS movement CoM
2.4 4 GRF 300
Hybrid
2.2
3.5 200 CoM
Ground Reaction Forces

GRF
2
3 100 Hybrid
CoM Profiles

1.8
2.5 0
1.6
2 -100
1.4

1.5 -200
1.2

1 1 -300

0.8 0.5 -400

0 2 4 0 2 4 0 1 2 3 4
time time time

links representing stationary foot, leg, thigh, and HAT. The segments was represented via torque actuators located at
applied torques at the ankle, knee, and hip joints included a the joints. The limited bandwidth effect of the muscle
feedforward component representing muscle activation via contractile dynamics was largely ignored in the simplified
descending commands from higher centers of the CNS, and mathematical model used in this study. Linearization of
a feedback component representing passive viscoelasticity model dynamics around standing posture was undertaken
at the joints. We did not explicitly model afferent feedback purely for the purpose of linear optimal LQR controller
from spindle, Golgi receptors, spinal reflexes, and/or long- synthesis to settle at steady-state end point of the move-
loop responses, eliminating the need to consider the neural ment. Standing posture is an equilibrium point in this
transmission delays in the motor servo loop. The function model with negligible feedback torques to keep the upright
of biological muscle actuators in positioning the body standing posture. In our previous studies [22], we presented

123
560
TSK fuzzy model with linearization at sitting and standing
posture, and this scheme can also be extended further with
more linearizing points in the trajectory. However, there
are also some controller design problems for multiple lin-
earizing points and combing the controller for full trajec-
tory. Full nonlinear model was employed for the simulation
of postural and voluntary movement in order to evaluate
the effectiveness of the controller. Sensitivity derivates of
the COM anterior position and the horizontal GRF were
employed as weights in the physiological cost optimization
leading to LQR design. Specifically, we separately con-
sidered LQR designs arising from minimization of sensi-
tivity functions representing the COM anterior position and
the horizontal GRF variables with respect to joint positions
and velocities. A hybrid scheme combining the two
approaches was also considered.
Simulation results were presented for two kinds of
movements: (a) a representative postural adjustment of the
type elicited following a perturbation to the BOS and
(b) voluntary STS movement as a representative of skilled
voluntary movements. We used the same physiological
LQR controller gains for both movements. The reference
trajectories for the STS movement were generated from a
third-order linear model [30]. No reference trajectories in
the case of postural movement were considered. Our sim-
ulation results for both movements indicate that, in general,
the COM-based controller produced smoother movement
profiles with comparable settling times (about 50 % longer
settling time in the case of hip trajectory for postural
movement). Since the COM represents a kinematic vari-
able, as opposed to GRF, which is a kinetic variable, this
study shows that the sensitivity functions of kinematic
variables are more relevant toward optimization of postural
and voluntary movement. These results thus corroborate
the experimental results of Resiman, Scholz, and Schöner
[20, 21] regarding applicability of kinematic variables. In
that study, the authors also found that subjects preferred a
range of state–space combinations that did not appreciably
disturb the COM linear and angular momentums during the
performance of STS movement. This may indicate that
movement learning resulted in the selection of optimal
COM momentum for the STS task. However, since our
biomechanical model did not possess the many redundant
DOF considered in [20, 21], the results in the two studies
may not be directly comparable.
The relative contributions of the active feedforward and
passive feedback joint moments in the case of postural and
voluntary STS movements were studied in Figs. 6 and 11.
In all cases, passive torques were assumed to be zero at
moment initiation. As the intended movement progressed,
passive torques build up as a function of deviation from the
assumed reference trajectory reaching a peak value fol-
lowed by a recession and finally going back to zero at
123
Cogn Comput (2012) 4:549–562
movement termination. In the case of STS movement, the
passive torques peaked twice for the knee joint, showing
somewhat jerky movement at that joint. We note that
though the relative contribution of passive torques toward
postural stabilization and movement coordination was
found to be significant, overall torques in all cases were
well within physiological limits. In this regard, it is also
worth noting that the passive joint torques developed dur-
ing simulation of postural and voluntary STS movement
were physiologically feasible, and the corresponding joint
stiffness values, as represented in the physiologically
optimized controller gain matrix, were not excessive. In
other words, movement simulation by the simulation model
and the controller used in this study did not generate
excessive passive torques as was the case in modeling
study in [8]. In addition, we similarly observed a close
phase relationship between COM and COP with physio-
logically feasible joint torques as opposed to [8], which
suggested excessive ankle torque for their stiffness-only
model. This may be due to the additional DOF considered
in our study and further reinforces the role of knee joint in
postural stabilization. Finally, we note that in modeling
studies, the overall joint torques underlying a particular
movement can be abridged through a movement optimi-
zation process [18]. In that study, the authors have pro-
posed a multi-criteria optimization where the cost function
included feedback torques generated during movement
simulation in addition to residual dynamics and/or position
errors at movement termination. Other physiologically
relevant cost functions can be used for this purpose. For
example, energy optimal control of disturbance rejection
has been proposed by [31].
The effectiveness of active and/or passive mechanisms
of postural control has been a topic of intense debate
among researchers [8–14]. Motivated by the experimental
observation that the oscillation on the support surface of
the COM appeared to be in phase with the COP, and the
theoretical consideration that such phase lock was incom-
patible with active control of balance, Winter et al. [8]
advanced a simpler stiffness-based model to solve the
complex postural stabilization problem. According to these
researchers, stabilization of quiet standing might be
achieved by the stiffness of ankle muscles alone without
any significant active or reactive component except for
background setting of the stiffness parameters. Their view
of postural stabilization drew further support from the well-
known equilibrium point hypothesis [32], which states that
well-coordinated multi-joint movements made extensive
use of spring-like properties of the musculo-tendon appa-
ratus and peripheral neural feedback loops, thus alleviating
computational burden on the CNS. The role of CNS in
these movements was relegated to background setting of
the threshold lengths of the muscles involved. In addition,
Cogn Comput (2012) 4:549–562 561

movement trajectories could be simply constructed through Table 1 Definition of biomechanical four link model terms
a gradual shift in the equilibrium point without explicit Inertial components [d11 d12 d13 [11.2087 9.6933 5.9652
compensation for dynamics [33]. Equilibrium point (N s2) d22 d23 d33] 9.3593 5.9652 11.8305]
hypothesis, though well established in the motor control
Gravitational [f1 f2 f3] [26.45 22.54 13.87]
community for over two decades and in particular, advance-
components (Nm)
ment in stiffness measurement has enabled researchers
Foot mass (kg) mf 1.91
[34, 35] to conclude that computer simulations presented in
Foot length lf 0.27
support of the hypothesis may have been based on faulty
Ankle Heel (m) a 0.05
assumptions about stiffness in the joints. The research on
Ankle Height (m) b 0.07
this topic thus remains inconclusive. Our simulation results
Ankle–foot COM (m) c 0.08
support an active–passive model of postural and voluntary
Gravity g (m/s2) g 9.8
movement stabilization.
Mass of model (kg) m 64.09
Researchers in [36, 37] presented the movement coor-
dination of biologically inspired robots derived from
human cognition. These movements should be optimally s1 þ bFx  cmf g
controlled for energy minimization as well as maintaining xCOP ¼ lf  a þ ðA4Þ
Fy
the coordination between the limbs (or extremities).
Movement coordination in STS task is dependent upon References
physiological variables as reported by experiments in [20,
21]. Our model emphasizes the movement coordination 1. Peterka RJ. Postural control model interpretation of stabilogram
based upon these experimental results for computation of diffusion process. Biol Cybern. 2000;82:335–43.
control mechanism, which is both cognitive in nature and 2. Peterka RJ. Sensorimotor integration in Human Postural Control.
J Neurophysiol. 2006;88:1097–118.
optimal for amount of effort to reach its task objective. In 3. Van Soest AJ, Haenen WP, Rozendaal LA. Stability of bipedal
future, applications such as rehabilitation or robotic engi- stance: the contribution of cocontraction and spindle feedback.
neering for prostheses will use such frameworks that are Biol Cybern. 2003;88:93–301.
cognitive controlled and optimal in nature for more natural 4. Maurer C, Mergner T, Peterka RJ. Multisensory control of human
upright stance. Exp Brain Res. 2006;171:231–50.
movement. This framework will be extended with fuzzy 5. Nashner LM, McCollum G. The organization of human postural
and neural modeling of movement coordination with movements: a formal basis and experimental synthesis. Behav
physiological optimization in order to compute better Brain Sci. 1985;8:135–72.
cognitive control for entire voluntary motion for human or 6. Horak FB, Nashner LM. Central programming of postural
movements: adaptation to altered support-surface configurations.
biologically inspired robotic applications. J. Neurophysiology. 1986;55:1369–81.
7. Maki BE, McIlroy WE. The role of limb movements in main-
Acknowledgments This work was supported in part by a grant from taining upright stance: the change-in-support strategy. Phys Ther.
the Arkansas Science and Technology Authority. 1997;77:488–507.
8. Winter DA, Patla AE, Prince F, Ishac M, Gielo-Perczak K.
Stiffness control in quiet standing. J Neurophysiol. 1998;80:
Appendix 1211–21.
9. Todorov E, Jordan MI. Optimal feedback control as a theory of
motor coordination. Nat Neurosci. 2002;5:1226–35.
The inertial, Coriolis, and gravitational matrices appearing 10. Schaal S, Schweighofer N. Computational motor control in
in the nonlinear dynamic model (1) are given as [18]: humans and robots. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2005;15:675–82.
2 3 11. Harris CM, Wolpert DM. Signal-dependent noise determines
d11 d12 cosðh1  h2 Þ d13 cosðh1  h3 Þ motor planning. Nature. 1998;394:780–4.
6 7
D ¼ 4 d12 cosðh1  h2 Þ d22 d23 cosðh2  h3 Þ 5 12. Kuo AD. An optimal control model for analyzing human postural
balance. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 1995;42:87–101.
d13 cosðh1  h3 Þ d23 cosðh2  h3 Þ d33
13. Kuo AD. An optimal state estimation model of sensory integra-
ðA1Þ tion in human postural balance. J Neural Eng. 2005;2:235–49.
14. Pandy M. Computer modeling and simulation of human move-
H¼ ment. Annu Rev Biomed Eng. 2001;3:245–73.
2 3
0 d12 h5 sinðh1  h2 Þ d13 h6 sinðh1  h3 Þ 15. Van der Helm FCT, Rozendaal L. Musculoskeletal Systems with
6 7 Intrinsic and Proprioceptive Feedback. In: Winters JM, Crago PE,
4 d12 h4 sinðh1  h2 Þ 0 d23 h6 sinðh2  h3 Þ 5
editors. Biomechanics and neural control of movement and pos-
d13 h4 sinðh1  h3 Þ d23 h6 sinðh2  h3 Þ 0 ture. New York: Springer-Verlag; 2000. p. 164–74.
ðA2Þ 16. Barin K. Evaluation of a generalized model of human postural
dynamics and control in the sagittal plane. Biol Cybern. 1989;
G ¼ g½ f1 cos h1 f2 cos h2 f3 cos h3  ðA3Þ 61:37–50.

123
562
17. Pai YC, Iqbal K. Simulated movement termination for balance
recovery: can movement strategies be sought to maintain stability
even in the presence of slipping or forced sliding? J. Biome-
chanics. 1999;32:779–86.
18. Iqbal K, Pai YC. Predicted region of stability for balance
recovery: motion at knee joint can improve termination of for-
ward movement. J. Biomech. 2000;33:1619–27.
19. Kerr KM, White JA, Barr DA, Mollan RAB. Analysis of sit-to-
stand movement cycle in normal subjects. Clin Biomech.
1997;12:236–45.
20. Resiman DS, Scholz JP, Schöner G. Coordination underlying the
control of whole body momentum during sit-to-stand. Gait Pos-
ture. 2002;15:45–55.
21. Scholz JP, Resiman DS, Schöner G. Effects of varying task
constraints on solutions to joint coordination in a sit-to-stand task.
Exp Brain Res. 2001;141:485–500.
22. Mughal AM, Iqbal K. ‘‘A fuzzy biomechanical model with H2
optimal control of sit-to-stand movement’’, Proceedings of the
2006 American control conference, Minneapolis, MN; 2006.
pp. 3427–3432.
23. Mughal AM, Iqbal K. ‘‘A comparison of fuzzy model based
optimal control systems for biomechanical sit-to-stand move-
ment’’, Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on
engineering of intelligent systems, Islamabad, Pakistan; 2006.
24. Jo S, Massaquoi SG. A model of cerebellum stabilized and
scheduled hybrid long-loop control of upright balance. Biol Cy-
bern. 2004;91:188–202.
25. Jo S, Massaquoi SG. A model of cerebrocerebello-spinomuscular
interaction in the sagittal control of human walking. Biol Cybern.
2007;95(3):279–307.
26. Mughal AM, Iqbal K. ‘‘Active control vs. passive stiffness in
posture and movement coordination’’, IEEE International con-
ference on systems, man and cybernetics, Montreal, 2007.
pp. 3372–3376.
123
Cogn Comput (2012) 4:549–562
27. Winter DA. Biomechanics and motor control of human move-
ment. New York: Wiley; 1990.
28. Brooks V. The neural basis of motor control, Chapter 4. Oxford:
Oxford University Press; 1986.
29. Keshner E, Allum J. ‘‘Muscle activation patterns coordinating
postural stability from head to foot’’ In Multiple muscle systems:
biomechanics and movement organization, New York: Springer-
Verlag; 1990. pp. 481–497.
30. Mughal AM, Iqbal K. ‘‘Synthesis of angular profiles for bipedal
sit-to-stand movement’’, 40th southeastern symposium on system
theory, New Orleans, LA, 2008.
31. Mihelj M, Munih M, Ponikvar M. Human energy: optimal control
of disturbance rejection during constrained standing. J Med Eng
Technol. 2003;27:223–32.
32. Feldman AG. Functional tuning of the nervous system with
control of movement or maintenance of a steady posture. ii.
controllable parameters of the muscle. Biophysics. 1996;11:
565–78.
33. Shadmehr R. The equilibrium point hypothesis for control of
movement. Baltimore, MD: Department of Biomedical Engi-
neering, Johns Hopkins University; 1998.
34. Gottlieb GL. Rejecting the equilibrium-point hypothesis. Mot
Control. 1998;2:10–2.
35. Gomi H, Kawato M. Equilibrium-point control hypothesis
examined by measured arm stiffness during multijoint movement.
Science. 1996;272:117–20.
36. Cecilia L, Roland J. Bio-inspired sensory-motor coordination.
Auton Robots. 2008;25:1–2.
37. Cecilia L, Gioel A, Eugenio G, Giancarlo T, Roland J, Hitoshi K,
Zbigniew W, Maria C, Paolo D. A bio-inspired predictive sen-
sory-motor coordination scheme for robot reaching and pre-
shaping. Auton Robots. 2008;25:85–101.