Technical Brief

Time-Domain Optimal Experimental Design in Human Seated Postural Control Testing

[+] Author and Article Information
M. Cody Priess

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
MSU Center for Orthopedic Research (MSUCOR),
Michigan State University,
East Lansing, MI 48824
e-mail: priessma@msu.edu

Jongeun Choi

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering,
Michigan State University,
East Lansing, MI 48824
e-mail: jchoi@egr.msu.edu

Clark Radcliffe

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Michigan State University,
East Lansing, MI 48824
e-mail: radcliffe@egr.msu.edu

John M. Popovich, Jr.

Department of Osteopathic Surgical Specialties,
Michigan State University,
East Lansing, MI 48824
e-mail: popovi16@msu.edu

Jacek Cholewicki

Department of Osteopathic Surgical Specialties,
Michigan State University,
East Lansing, MI 48824
e-mail: cholewic@msu.edu

N. Peter Reeves

Department of Osteopathic Surgical Specialties,
Michigan State University,
East Lansing, MI 48824
e-mail: reevesn@msu.edu

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Dynamic Systems Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF DYNAMIC SYSTEMS, MEASUREMENT, AND CONTROL. Manuscript received February 14, 2014; final manuscript received October 13, 2014; published online December 10, 2014. Assoc. Editor: Sergey Nersesov.

J. Dyn. Sys., Meas., Control 137(5), 054501 (May 01, 2015) (7 pages) Paper No: DS-14-1069; doi: 10.1115/1.4028850 History: Received February 14, 2014; Revised October 13, 2014; Online December 10, 2014

We are developing a series of systems science-based clinical tools that will assist in modeling, diagnosing, and quantifying postural control deficits in human subjects. In line with this goal, we have designed and constructed a seated balance device and associated experimental task for identification of the human seated postural control system. In this work, we present a quadratic programming (QP) technique for optimizing a time-domain experimental input signal for this device. The goal of this optimization is to maximize the information present in the experiment, and therefore its ability to produce accurate estimates of several desired seated postural control parameters. To achieve this, we formulate the problem as a nonconvex QP and attempt to locally maximize a measure (T-optimality condition) of the experiment’s Fisher information matrix (FIM) under several constraints. These constraints include limits on the input amplitude, physiological output magnitude, subject control amplitude, and input signal autocorrelation. Because the autocorrelation constraint takes the form of a quadratic constraint (QC), we replace it with a conservative linear relaxation about a nominal point, which is iteratively updated during the course of optimization. We show that this iterative descent algorithm generates a convergent suboptimal solution that guarantees monotonic nonincreasing of the cost function value while satisfying all constraints during iterations. Finally, we present successful experimental results using an optimized input sequence.

Copyright © 2015 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.


Reeves, N. P., Cholewicki, J., and Narendra, K. S., 2009, “Effects of Reflex Delays on Postural Control During Unstable Seated Balance,” J. Biomech., 42(2), pp. 164–170. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Xu, Y., Choi, J., Reeves, N., and Cholewicki, J., 2010, “Optimal Control of the Spine System,” ASME J. Biomech. Eng., 132, p. 051004. [CrossRef]
Mehra, R., 1974, “Optimal Input Signals for Parameter Estimation in Dynamic Systems—Survey and New Results,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, 19(6), pp. 753–768. [CrossRef]
Yuan, Z.-D., and Ljung, L., 1985, “Unprejudiced Optimal Open Loop Input Design for Identification of Transfer Functions,” Automatica, 21(6), pp. 697–708. [CrossRef]
Gevers, M., and Ljung, L., 1986, “Optimal Experiment Designs With Respect to the Intended Model Application,” Automatica, 22(5), pp. 543–554. [CrossRef]
Forssell, U., and Ljung, L., 2000, “Some Results on Optimal Experiment Design,” Automatica, 36(5), pp. 749–756. [CrossRef]
Jansson, H., and Hjalmarsson, H., 2005, “Input Design Via LMIS Admitting Frequency-Wise Model Specifications in Confidence Regions,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, 50(10), pp. 1534–1549. [CrossRef]
Forbes, P. A., de Bruijn, E., Schouten, A. C., van der Helm, F. C., and Happee, R., 2013, “Dependency of Human Neck Reflex Responses on the Bandwidth of Pseudorandom Anterior–Posterior Torso Perturbations,” Exp. Brain Res., 226(1), pp. 1–14. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Luo, Z.-q., Ma, W.-k., So, A.-C., Ye, Y., and Zhang, S., 2010, “Semidefinite Relaxation of Quadratic Optimization Problems,” IEEE Signal Process. Mag., 27(3), pp. 20–34. [CrossRef]
d'Aspremont, A., and Boyd, S., 2003, “Relaxations and Randomized Methods for Nonconvex QCQPs,” Stanford University, Stanford, CA, EE392o Class Notes.
Pukelsheim, F., 1993, Optimal Design of Experiments, Wiley, New York. [CrossRef]
Priess, M., Choi, J., Radcliffe, C., Popovich, J. M., Jr., Cholewicki, J., and Reeves, N., 2014, “Time-Domain Optimal Experimental Design in Human Postural Control Testing,” Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE American Control Conference, Portland, OR, June 4–6, pp. 4790–4795. [CrossRef]
Priess, M. C., Choi, J., Radcliffe, C., Popovich, J. M., Cholewicki, J., and Reeves, N. P., 2014, “Time-Domain Optimal Experimental Design in Human Seated Postural Control Testing,” http://www.egr.msu.edu/∼jchoi/files/papers/index.html
Lee, H., Granata, K. P., and Madigan, M. L., 2008, “Effects of Trunk Exertion Force and Direction on Postural Control of the Trunk During Unstable Sitting,” Clin. Biomech., 23(5), pp. 505–509. [CrossRef]
Slota, G. P., Granata, K. P., and Madigan, M. L., 2008, “Effects of Seated Whole-Body Vibration on Postural Control of the Trunk During Unstable Seated Balance,” Clin. Biomech., 23(4), pp. 381–386. [CrossRef]
Ljung, L., 1999, System Identification: Theory for the User, PTR Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Prochazka, A., Gillard, D., and Bennett, D. J., 1997, “Implications of Positive Feedback in the Control of Movement,” J. Neurophysiol., 77(6), pp. 3237–3251. [PubMed]
Mugge, W., Abbink, D., and Van der Helm, F., 2007, “Reduced Power Method: How to Evoke Low-Bandwidth Behaviour While Estimating Full-Bandwidth Dynamics,” IEEE 10th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics, Noordwijk, The Netherlands, June 13–15, pp. 575–581. [CrossRef]
Zatsiorsky, V. M., 2002, Kinetics of Human Motion, Human Kinetics, Champaign, IL.
Hjalmarsson, H., 2005, “From Experiment Design to Closed-Loop Control,” Automatica, 41(3), pp. 393–438. [CrossRef]
Aguero, J., and Goodwin, G. C., 2006, “On the Optimality of Open and Closed Loop Experiments in System Identification,” 45th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, San Diego, CA, Dec. 13–15, pp. 163–168. [CrossRef]
Goodwin, G. C., and Payne, R. L., 1977, Dynamic System Identification: Experiment Design and Data Analysis, Academic, New York.
Rojas, C. R., Welsh, J. S., Goodwin, G. C., and Feuer, A., 2007, “Robust Optimal Experiment Design for System Identification,” Automatica, 43(6), pp. 993–1008. [CrossRef]
Aoki, M., and Staley, R., 1970, “On Input Signal Synthesis in Parameter Identification,” Automatica, 6(3), pp. 431–440. [CrossRef]
Schrama, R. J., 1992, “Accurate Identification for Control: The Necessity of an Iterative Scheme,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, 37(7), pp. 991–994. [CrossRef]


Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Block diagram of the seated balance experiment

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Simplified mechanical diagram of the seated balance experiment

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Subject on the backdrivable robot

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

The upper plot shows the optimal input sequence u. The lower plot shows the change in the objective function J(u;θ∧0) with increasing iteration i.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Simulated results using the optimal input u. The upper plot shows the simulated angles α1 and α2 versus time, along with their bounds. The center plot shows the differential angle α˜ versus time along with its bounds. The bottom plot shows the optimal input signal autocorrelation Ruu⋆ along with its bounds, and the original signal autocorrelation Ruu for comparison. The constraints on uh were not active during simulation.



Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In