ArticleRoyal Society open science2021
Comparing system identification techniques for identifying human-like walking controllers.
Article in Royal Society open science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Identification of a Step-And-Brake Controller of a Human Based on Prediction of Capturability.Frontiers in robotics and AI · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
While human walking has been well studied, the exact controller is unknown. This paper used human experimental walking data and system identification techniques to infer a human-like controller for a spring-loaded inverted pendulum (SLIP) model. Because the best system identification technique is unknown, three methods were used and compared. First, a linear system was found using ordinary least squares. A second linear system was found that both encoded the linearized SLIP model and matched the first linear system as closely as possible. A third nonlinear system used sparse identification of nonlinear dynamics (SINDY). When directly mapping states from the start to the end of a step, all three methods were accurate, with errors below 10% of the mean experimental values in most cases. When using the controllers in simulation, the errors were significantly higher but remained below 10% for all but one state. Thus, all three system identification methods generated accurate system models. Somewhat surprisingly, the linearized system was the most accurate, followed closely by SINDY. This suggests that nonlinear system identification techniques are not needed when finding a discrete human gait controller, at least for unperturbed walking. It may also suggest that human control of normal, unperturbed walking is approximately linear.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.