心率动态识别和控制在循环测力计运动:一阶和二阶性能的比较

Alexander H. Spörri, Hanjie Wang, K. Hunt
{"title":"心率动态识别和控制在循环测力计运动:一阶和二阶性能的比较","authors":"Alexander H. Spörri, Hanjie Wang, K. Hunt","doi":"10.3389/fcteg.2022.894180","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Accurate and robust feedback control of human heart rate is important for exercise testing and prescription. Feedback controllers can be designed using first-order, linear, time-invariant models of heart rate dynamics, but it remains to investigate whether second-order models lead to better identification and control performance. The distinguishing contribution of this research is the direct employment of established physiological principles to determine model structure, and to focus the feedback-design goals: cardiac physiology proposes a two-phase second-order response, delineated into fast and slow components; the natural phenomenon of broad-spectrum heart-rate variability motivates a novel feedback design approach that appropriately shapes the input-sensitivity function. Aim: The aim of this work was to compare the fidelity of first- and second-order models of heart rate response during cycle-ergometer exercise, and to compare the accuracy and dynamics of feedback controllers that were designed using the two model structures. Methods: Twenty-seven participants each took part in two identification tests to generate separate estimation and validation data sets, where ergometer work rate was a pseudo-random binary sequence and in two feedback tests where controllers were designed using the first- or second-order models. Results: Second-order models gave substantially and significantly higher model fit (51.9% vs. 47.9%, p < 0.0001; second order vs. first order) and lower root-mean-square model error (2.93 bpm vs. 3.21 bpm, p < 0.0001). There was modest improvement in tracking accuracy with controllers based on second-order models, where mean root-mean-square tracking errors were 2.62 bpm (second order) and 2.77 bpm (first order), with p = 0.052. Controllers based on second-order models were found to be substantially and significantly more dynamic: mean values of average control signal power were 9.61 W2 and 7.56 W2, p < 0.0001. Conclusion: The results of this study confirm the hypotheses that second-order models of heart-rate dynamics give better fidelity than first-order models, and that feedback compensator designs that use the additional dynamic mode give more accurate and more dynamic closed-loop control performance.","PeriodicalId":73076,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in control engineering","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Heart Rate Dynamics Identification and Control in Cycle Ergometer Exercise: Comparison of First- and Second-Order Performance\",\"authors\":\"Alexander H. Spörri, Hanjie Wang, K. Hunt\",\"doi\":\"10.3389/fcteg.2022.894180\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Accurate and robust feedback control of human heart rate is important for exercise testing and prescription. Feedback controllers can be designed using first-order, linear, time-invariant models of heart rate dynamics, but it remains to investigate whether second-order models lead to better identification and control performance. The distinguishing contribution of this research is the direct employment of established physiological principles to determine model structure, and to focus the feedback-design goals: cardiac physiology proposes a two-phase second-order response, delineated into fast and slow components; the natural phenomenon of broad-spectrum heart-rate variability motivates a novel feedback design approach that appropriately shapes the input-sensitivity function. Aim: The aim of this work was to compare the fidelity of first- and second-order models of heart rate response during cycle-ergometer exercise, and to compare the accuracy and dynamics of feedback controllers that were designed using the two model structures. Methods: Twenty-seven participants each took part in two identification tests to generate separate estimation and validation data sets, where ergometer work rate was a pseudo-random binary sequence and in two feedback tests where controllers were designed using the first- or second-order models. Results: Second-order models gave substantially and significantly higher model fit (51.9% vs. 47.9%, p < 0.0001; second order vs. first order) and lower root-mean-square model error (2.93 bpm vs. 3.21 bpm, p < 0.0001). There was modest improvement in tracking accuracy with controllers based on second-order models, where mean root-mean-square tracking errors were 2.62 bpm (second order) and 2.77 bpm (first order), with p = 0.052. Controllers based on second-order models were found to be substantially and significantly more dynamic: mean values of average control signal power were 9.61 W2 and 7.56 W2, p < 0.0001. Conclusion: The results of this study confirm the hypotheses that second-order models of heart-rate dynamics give better fidelity than first-order models, and that feedback compensator designs that use the additional dynamic mode give more accurate and more dynamic closed-loop control performance.\",\"PeriodicalId\":73076,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Frontiers in control engineering\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-05-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Frontiers in control engineering\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3389/fcteg.2022.894180\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in control engineering","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fcteg.2022.894180","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

背景:准确和稳健的心率反馈控制对运动测试和处方很重要。反馈控制器可以使用心率动力学的一阶、线性、时不变模型来设计,但二阶模型是否能带来更好的识别和控制性能还有待研究。这项研究的显著贡献是直接利用既定的生理学原理来确定模型结构,并关注反馈设计目标:心脏生理学提出了两阶段的二阶响应,分为快分量和慢分量;广谱心率变异性的自然现象激发了一种新的反馈设计方法,该方法适当地塑造了输入灵敏度函数。目的:这项工作的目的是比较周期测力计运动中心率反应的一阶和二阶模型的保真度,并比较使用这两种模型结构设计的反馈控制器的准确性和动力学。方法:27名参与者分别参加了两次识别测试,以生成单独的估计和验证数据集,其中测力计工作速率是伪随机二进制序列,以及两次反馈测试,其中控制器是使用一阶或二阶模型设计的。结果:二阶模型给出了显著更高的模型拟合度(51.9%对47.9%,p<0.0001;二阶对一阶)和更低的均方根模型误差(2.93 bpm对3.21 bpm,p<0.001)。基于二阶模型的控制器在跟踪精度方面有适度提高,其中均方根跟踪误差分别为2.62 bpm(二阶)和2.77 bpm(一阶),p=0.052。基于二阶模型的控制器被发现更具动态性:平均控制信号功率的平均值分别为9.61 W2和7.56 W2,p<0.0001。结论:本研究的结果证实了以下假设:心率动力学的二阶模型比一阶模型具有更好的保真度,并且使用附加动态模式的反馈补偿器设计具有更准确、更动态的闭环控制性能。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Heart Rate Dynamics Identification and Control in Cycle Ergometer Exercise: Comparison of First- and Second-Order Performance
Background: Accurate and robust feedback control of human heart rate is important for exercise testing and prescription. Feedback controllers can be designed using first-order, linear, time-invariant models of heart rate dynamics, but it remains to investigate whether second-order models lead to better identification and control performance. The distinguishing contribution of this research is the direct employment of established physiological principles to determine model structure, and to focus the feedback-design goals: cardiac physiology proposes a two-phase second-order response, delineated into fast and slow components; the natural phenomenon of broad-spectrum heart-rate variability motivates a novel feedback design approach that appropriately shapes the input-sensitivity function. Aim: The aim of this work was to compare the fidelity of first- and second-order models of heart rate response during cycle-ergometer exercise, and to compare the accuracy and dynamics of feedback controllers that were designed using the two model structures. Methods: Twenty-seven participants each took part in two identification tests to generate separate estimation and validation data sets, where ergometer work rate was a pseudo-random binary sequence and in two feedback tests where controllers were designed using the first- or second-order models. Results: Second-order models gave substantially and significantly higher model fit (51.9% vs. 47.9%, p < 0.0001; second order vs. first order) and lower root-mean-square model error (2.93 bpm vs. 3.21 bpm, p < 0.0001). There was modest improvement in tracking accuracy with controllers based on second-order models, where mean root-mean-square tracking errors were 2.62 bpm (second order) and 2.77 bpm (first order), with p = 0.052. Controllers based on second-order models were found to be substantially and significantly more dynamic: mean values of average control signal power were 9.61 W2 and 7.56 W2, p < 0.0001. Conclusion: The results of this study confirm the hypotheses that second-order models of heart-rate dynamics give better fidelity than first-order models, and that feedback compensator designs that use the additional dynamic mode give more accurate and more dynamic closed-loop control performance.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Reinforcement learning for path planning of free-floating space robotic manipulator with collision avoidance and observation noise Self-paced heart rate control during treadmill exercise for persons with gait impairment: a case study Editorial: Cooperative control and team behaviors in adversarial environments Erratum: Global versus local Lyapunov approach used in disturbance observer-based wind turbine control Teaming behavior in adversarial scenarios
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1