Back

Reach-and-hold at a musculoskeletal arm posture is an unstable-equilibrium stabilization problem: the limits of fixed equilibrium-point and impedance controllers

Kobayashi, J.

2026-06-20 neuroscience
10.64898/2026.06.15.732510 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Holding a redundant limb at a commanded posture against gravity is a basic problem in musculoskeletal motor control. Whether fixed, biologically grounded controllers can achieve it remains unclear. Using the MyoSuite myoArm under a frozen-criterion, hash-provenanced protocol, we evaluate fixed, non-learning controllers: an equilibrium-point/referent (lambda) reflex, a reflex with co-contraction, an endpoint Cartesian impedance controller, a gravity-compensation feedforward, and an exact inverse-statics gravity-balancing command. None achieves a stable near-task hold. The tested referent reflex placed a near-target equilibrium (best 0.048 m at the lowest target), but sustained a structural limit cycle that velocity damping did not cure; endpoint impedance settled at far false equilibria; and an exact gravity-balancing activation can exist while deployment falls away. At posture-matched targets evaluated in both the 34- and 63-muscle models, the reduced acceleration-position Jacobian has positive real eigenvalues, indicating locally unstable second-order modes. In the 34-muscle model, the full fixed-controller grid also fails to produce a stable near-task hold. In the 63-muscle model, measured endpoint stiffness spans human-scale magnitudes and human-like ellipse axis ratios across a co-contraction sweep, so the failure is not explained by a limp or non-biological plant. We conclude that reach-and-hold is an unstable-dynamics stabilization problem: the tested fixed equilibrium-point/referent controller can place a near-target equilibrium, but does not stabilize it. These results motivate learned selective impedance and predictive/internal-model control as the next class of mechanisms, separating equilibrium placement from stabilization.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.