Planning Control Model Research Articles

Online distributed cooperative model predictive control of energy-saving trajectory planning for multiple high-speed train movements

The cooperative energy-efficient trajectory planning for multiple high-speed train movements is considered in this paper. We model all the high-speed trains as the agents that can communicate with others and propose a local trajectory planning control model using the Model Predictive Control (MPC) theory. After that we design an online distributed cooperative optimization algorithm for multiple train trajectories planning, under which each train agent can regulate the trajectory planning procedure to save energy using redundancy trip time through tuning ACO’s heuristic information parameter. Compared to the existing literature, the vital distinctions of our work lies not only on the online cooperative trajectory planning but also on the distributed mechanism for multiple high-speed trains. Experimental studies are given to illustrate the effectiveness of the proposed methods with the practical operational data of Wuhan-Guangzhou High-speed Railway in China.

Combined visual illusion effects on the perceived index of difficulty and movement outcomes in discrete and continuous fitts' tapping.

The speed-accuracy trade-off is a fundamental movement problem that has been extensively investigated. It has been established that the speed at which one can move to tap targets depends on how large the targets are and how far they are apart. These spatial properties of the targets can be quantified by the index of difficulty (ID). Two visual illusions are known to affect the perception of target size and movement amplitude: the Ebbinghaus illusion and Muller-Lyer illusion. We created visual images that combined these two visual illusions to manipulate the perceived ID, and then examined people's visual perception of the targets in illusory context as well as their performance in tapping those targets in both discrete and continuous manners. The findings revealed that the combined visual illusions affected the perceived ID similarly in both discrete and continuous judgment conditions. However, the movement outcomes were affected by the combined visual illusions according to the tapping mode. In discrete tapping, the combined visual illusions affected both movement accuracy and movement amplitude such that the effective ID resembled the perceived ID. In continuous tapping, none of the movement outcomes were affected by the combined visual illusions. Participants tapped the targets with higher speed and accuracy in all visual conditions. Based on these findings, we concluded that distinct visual-motor control mechanisms were responsible for execution of discrete and continuous Fitts' tapping. Although discrete tapping relies on allocentric information (object-centered) to plan for action, continuous tapping relies on egocentric information (self-centered) to control for action. The planning-control model for rapid aiming movements is supported.

The impact of visual illusions on perception, action planning, and motor performance

The present study extended recent research revealing that illusions can influence performance in golf putting (Witt, Linkenauger, & Proffitt Psychological Science, 23, 397-399, 2012), by exploring the potential mediating roles of attention and action planning. Glover and Dixon's (Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 27, 560-572, 2001) planning-control model suggests that both perceptual and movement-planning processes are prone to illusion-based bias. We therefore predicted that both the perception of target size and a measure of attentional control related to movement planning in golf putting (the quiet eye) would be influenced by the illusion. Moreover, as performance could not be corrected using online control (once the ball was struck), we predicted that these biases would also influence performance. We therefore proposed a three-stage process by which illusory context biases perceptual processes, which in turn bias subsequent attentional control related to movement planning, which in turn biases motor performance. Forty novice golfers completed an Ebbinghaus illusion putting task that was designed to manipulate their perceptions of target size, while quiet eye duration and performance (mean radial error) were measured. The results indicated that the illusion was effective in facilitating differences in perceived target size, with perceptually bigger holes promoting longer quiet eye durations and more accurate putting. Follow-up mediation analyses revealed that illusion-based differences in size perception partially mediated illusion-based differences in both quiet eye duration and performance. Moreover, the relationship between illusion-based differences in quiet eye duration and performance was also significant. Future research should further test this three-stage process of bias in other far-aiming tasks in which online control cannot be used.

The effect of the Müller-Lyer illusion on the planning and control of manual aiming movements.

Two experiments used Müller-Lyer stimuli to test the predictions of the planning-control model (S. Glover, 2002) for aiming movements. In Experiment 1, participants aimed to stimuli that either remained the same or changed upon movement initiation. Experiment 2 was identical except that the duration of visual feedback for online control was manipulated. The authors found that the figures visible during movement planning and online control had additive effects on endpoint bias, even when participants had ample time to use visual feedback to modify their movements (Experiment 2). These findings are problematic not only for the planning-control model but also for A. D. Milner and M. A. Goodale's (1995) two visual system explanation of illusory bias. Although our results are consistent with the idea that a single representation is used for perception, movement planning, and online control (e.g., V. H. Franz, 2001), other work from our laboratory and elsewhere suggests that the manner in which space is coded depends on constraints associated with the specific task, such as the visual cues available to the performer.

Illusion Effects on Grasping Are Temporally Constant Not Dynamic.

The authors tested whether the effects of the Ebbinghaus illusion on grasping are corrected during late phases of the movement. Surprisingly, the grasp aperture was corrected neither under no-vision (N = 52) nor under full-vision (N = 48) conditions. The authors show that previous reports of a correction (e.g., S. Glover & P. Dixon, 2002a) are due to 2 artifacts: (a) inclusion of time points at which the target object was already touched and (b) erroneous statistics. This removes the central evidence on which S. Glover and P. Dixon's (2001a) planning-control model of action is based. In addition, the authors' results can help to refine more classic notions of motor control (e.g., R. Woodworth, 1899). In consequence, the authors reject S. Glover and P. Dixon's (2001a) planning-control model but not classic online-control theories.

Can the motor system resolve a premovement bias in grip aperture? Online analysis of grasping the Müller-Lyer illusion.

The goal of the present investigation was to determine the time-course by which the motor system might resolve the context-dependent effects of a visual illusion [i.e., the Müller-Lyer (ML) figure]. Specifically, we asked participants to scale their grip aperture (GA) to the perceived size of an object embedded within a ML figure in advance of closed-loop (CL) and open-loop (OL) grasping movements. As a result, premovement GA was biased in a direction consistent with the perceptual effects of the illusion. We reasoned that such a manipulation might provide a novel opportunity to determine whether the motor system is able to resolve a biased GA immediately following the onset of a response [i.e., in accord with the perception/action model (PAM); Milner and Goodale 1995, The visual brain in action, Oxford University Press], or gradually as the action unfolds [i.e., in accord with the planning/control model (PCM); Glover and Dixon 2002, Percept Psychophys 64:266-278]. It was found that biasing GA in advance of movement resulted in a reliable effect of the ML figure throughout CL and OL trials (i.e., up to 80% of grasping time). Although the present findings appear contrary to the theoretical tenets of the PAM and the PCM, it is proposed that biasing GA in advance of movement leads to offline visual processing and a feedforward mode of grasping control, thus accounting for the illusion-induced effect throughout the grasping response.

FMRI evidence for and behavioral evidence against the planning–control model

Consistent with the planning–control model, recent fMRI data reveal that the inferior parietal lobe, the frontal lobes, and the basal ganglia are involved in motor planning. Inconsistent with the planning–control model, however, recent behavioral data reveal a spatial repulsion effect, indicating that the visual context surrounding the target can sometimes influence the on-line control of goal-directed action.

Further evidence for, and some against, a planning–control dissociation

Further evidence for, and some against, a planning–control dissociation

Planning, control, and the illusion of explanation

Several aspects of Glover's planning–control model (PCM) appear incompatible with existing data. Moreover, there is no logical reason to suppose that separate visual representations should be required for the “planning” and “control” of actions in the first place. Although intuitively appealing, the PCM appears to lack strong empirical support.

Strong modularity and circular reasoning pervade the planning–control model

We believe the dichotomy of processes introduced in the target article is highly speculative, because the dichotomy is shaped by the questionable assumption of modularity and the complementary assumption of locality. As a result, the author falls into a line of circular reasoning that biases his analysis of the experimental and neuropsychological data, and weakens the proposed model.

Planning differences for chromaticity- and luminance-defined stimuli: A possible problem for Glover's planning–control model

We report data from an experiment using stimuli designed to differ in their availability for processing by the dorsal visual pathway, but which were equivalent in tasks mediated by the ventral pathway. When movements are made to these stimuli as targets, there are clear effects early in the movement. These effects appear at odds with the planning–control model of Glover.

At least some electrophysiological and behavioural data cannot be reconciled with the planning–control model

At least some electrophysiological and behavioural data cannot be reconciled with the planning–control model

The planning–control model and spatio-motor deficits following brain damage

The planning–control model and spatio-motor deficits following brain damage

Is there a dynamic illusion effect in the motor system?

Glover's planning–control model is based on his finding that visual illusions exert a larger effect in early phases than in late phases of a movement. But evidence for this dynamic illusion effect is weak, because: (a) it appears difficult to replicate; (b) Glover overestimates the accuracy of his results; and (c) he seems to underestimate the illusion effect at late phases.

Planning and control of action as solutions to an independence of visual mechanisms

Glover proposes a planning–control model for the parietal lobe that contrasts with previous formulations that suggest independent mechanisms for perception and action. The planning–control model potentially solves practical functional problems with a proposed independence of perception and action, and offers some new directions for a study of human performance.

Scale errors by very young children: A dissociation between action planning and control

Very young children occasionally commit scale errors, which involve a dramatic dissociation between planning and control: A child's visual representation of the size of a miniature object is not used in planning an action on it, but is used in the control of the action. Glover's planning–control model offers a very useful framework for analyzing this newly documented phenomenon.