The paradigm of continuous control using internal models has advanced understanding of human motor control. However, this paradigm ignores some aspects of human control, including intermittent feedback, serial ballistic control, triggered responses and refractory periods. It is shown that event-driven intermittent control provides a framework to explain the behaviour of the human operator under a wider range of conditions than continuous control. Continuous control is included as a special case, but sampling, system matched hold, an intermittent predictor and an event trigger allow serial open-loop trajectories using intermittent feedback. The implementation here may be described as "continuous observation, intermittent action". Beyond explaining unimodal regulation distributions in common with continuous control, these features naturally explain refractoriness and bimodal stabilisation distributions observed in double stimulus tracking experiments and quiet standing, respectively. Moreover, given that human control systems contain significant time delays, a biological-cybernetic rationale favours intermittent over continuous control: intermittent predictive control is computationally less demanding than continuous predictive control. A standard continuous-time predictive control model of the human operator is used as the underlying design method for an event-driven intermittent controller. It is shown that when event thresholds are small and sampling is regular, the intermittent controller can masquerade as the underlying continuous-time controller and thus, under these conditions, the continuous-time and intermittent controller cannot be distinguished. This explains why the intermittent control hypothesis is consistent with the continuous control hypothesis for certain experimental conditions.

Non technical summary Homeostasis, the physiological control of variables such as body position, is founded on negative feedback mechanisms. The default understanding, consistent with a wealth of knowledge related to peripheral reflexes, is that feedback mechanisms controlling body position act continuously. For more than fifty years, it has been assumed that sustained control of position is best interpreted using continuous paradigms from engineering control theory such as those which regulate speed in a vehicle 'cruise control' system. Using a joystick to control an unstable load that falls over like a person fainting, we show that control using intermittent gentle taps is natural, more effective and robust to unexpected changes than continuous hand contact, works best with two taps per second, and can explain the upper frequency limit of control by both methods. Serial ballistic control, limited to an optimum rate, provides a new physiological paradigm for interpreting sustained control of posture and movement.Abstract Human motor control is often explained in terms of engineering 'servo' theory. Recently, continuous, optimal control using internal models has emerged as a leading paradigm for voluntary movement. However, these engineering paradigms are designed for high bandwidth, inflexible, consistent systems whereas human control is low bandwidth and flexible using noisy sensors and actuators. By contrast, engineering intermittent control was designed for bandwidth-limited applications. Our general interest is whether intermittent rather than continuous control is generic to human motor control. Currently, it would be assumed that continuous control is the superior and physiologically natural choice for controlling unstable loads, for example as required for maintaining human balance. Using visuo-manual tracking of an unstable load, we show that control using gentle, intermittent taps is entirely natural and effective. The gentle tapping method resulted in slightly superior position control and velocity minimisation, a reduced feedback time delay, greater robustness to changing actuator gain and equal or greater linearity with respect to the external disturbance. Control was possible with a median contact rate of 0.8 ± 0.3 s −1 . However, when optimising position or velocity regulation, a modal contact rate of 2 s −1 was observed. This modal rate was consistent with insignificant disturbance-joystick coherence beyond 1-2 Hz in both tapping and continuous contact methods. For this load, these results demonstrate a motor control process of serial ballistic trajectories limited to an optimum rate of 2 s −1 . Consistent with theoretical reasoning, our results suggest that intermittent open loop action is a natural consequence of human physiology.

Researchers have previously adopted the double stimulus paradigm to study refractoriness in human neuromotor control. Currently, refractoriness, such as the Psychological Refractory Period (PRP) has only been quantified in discrete movement conditions. Whether refractoriness and the associated serial ballistic hypothesis generalises to sustained control tasks has remained open for more than sixty years. Recently, a method of analysis has been presented that quantifies refractoriness in sustained control tasks and discriminates intermittent (serial ballistic) from continuous control. Following our recent demonstration that continuous control of an unstable second order system (i.e. balancing a ‘virtual’ inverted pendulum through a joystick interface) is unnecessary, we ask whether refractoriness of substantial duration (∼200 ms) is evident in sustained visual-manual control of external systems. We ask whether the refractory duration (i) is physiologically intrinsic, (ii) depends upon system properties like the order (0, 1st, and 2nd) or stability, (iii) depends upon target jump direction (reversal, same direction). Thirteen participants used discrete movements (zero order system) as well as more sustained control activity (1st and 2nd order systems) to track unpredictable step-sequence targets. Results show a substantial refractory duration that depends upon system order (250, 350 and 550 ms for 0, 1st and 2nd order respectively, n = 13, p<0.05), but not stability. In sustained control refractoriness was only found when the target reverses direction. In the presence of time varying actuators, systems and constraints, we propose that central refractoriness is an appropriate control mechanism for accommodating online optimization delays within the neural circuitry including the more variable processing times of higher order (complex) input-output relations.

Regulation by negative feedback is fundamental to engineering and biological processes. Biological regulation is usually explained using continuous feedback models from both classical and modern control theory. An alternative control paradigm, intermittent control, has also been suggested as a model for biological control systems, particularly those involving the central nervous system. However, at present, there is no identification method explicitly formulated to distinguish intermittent from continuous control; here, we present such a method. The identification experiment uses a special paired-step set-point sequence. The corresponding data analysis use a conventional ARMA model to relate a theoretically derived equivalent set-point to control signal; the novelty lies in sequentially and iteratively adjusting the timing of the steps of this equivalent set-point to optimize the linear time-invariant fit. The method was verified using realistic simulation data and was found to robustly distinguish not only between continuous and intermittent control but also between event-driven intermittent and clock-driven intermittent control. When applied to human pursuit tracking, event-driven intermittent control was identified, with an intermittent interval of 260 -310 ms (n ¼ 6, p , 0.05). This new identification method is applicable for machine and biological applications.

Two architectures of intermittent control are compared and contrasted in the context of the single inverted pendulum model often used for describing standing in humans. The architectures are similar insofar as they use periods of open-loop control punctuated by switching events when crossing a switching surface to keep the system state trajectories close to trajectories leading to equilibrium. The architectures differ in two significant ways. Firstly, in one case, the open-loop control trajectory is generated by a system-matched hold, and in the other case, the open-loop control signal is zero. Secondly, prediction is used in one case but not the other. The former difference is examined in this paper. The zero control alternative leads to periodic oscillations associated with limit cycles; whereas the system-matched control alternative gives trajectories (including homoclinic orbits) which contain the equilibrium point and do not have oscillatory behaviour. Despite this difference in behaviour, it is further shown that behaviour can appear similar when either the system is perturbed by additive noise or the system-matched trajectory generation is perturbed. The purpose of the research is to come to a common approach for understanding the theoretical properties of the two alternatives with the twin aims of choosing which provides the best explanation of current experimental data (which may not, by itself, distinguish beween the two alternatives) and suggesting future experiments to distinguish beween the two alternatives.