Evidence Hub

A comparison of resonance tuning with positive versus negative sensory feedback

Williams CA, DeWeerth SP

Biological cybernetics, 2007

Abstract

We used a computational model of rhythmic movement to analyze how the connectivity of sensory feedback affects the tuning of a closed-loop neuromechanical system to the mechanical resonant frequency (omega(r)). Our model includes a Matsuoka half-center oscillator for a central pattern generator (CPG) and a linear, one-degree-of-freedom system for a mechanical component. Using both an open-loop frequency response analysis and closed-loop simulations, we compared resonance tuning with four different feedback configurations as the mechanical resonant frequency, feedback gain, and mechanical damping varied. The feedback configurations consisted of two negative and two positive feedback connectivity schemes. We found that with negative feedback, resonance tuning predominantly occurred when omega(r) was higher than the CPG's endogenous frequency (omega(CPG)). In contrast, with the two positive feedback configurations, resonance tuning only occurred if omega(r) was lower than omega(CPG). Moreover, the differences in resonance tuning between the two positive (negative) feedback configurations increased with increasing feedback gain and with decreasing mechanical damping. Our results indicate that resonance tuning can be achieved with positive feedback. Furthermore, we have shown that the feedback configuration affects the parameter space over which the endogenous frequency of the CPG or resonant frequency the mechanical dynamics dominates the frequency of a rhythmic movement.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a simulation / modelling, done in computer models (in silico), not in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free