Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 54 references

Characterizing the limits of human stability during motion: perturbative experiment validates a model-based approach for the Sit-to-Stand task

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A 'stability basin' built from a person's own motion predicts sit-to-stand failure before it happens.

desk verdict A promising first validation of the Stability Basin idea, but the 90% failure-accuracy claim is undermined by a terminal-set loophole for late failures. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.01876 v1 pith:LDKGM7GR submitted 2019-08-05 q-bio.QM

Patrick D. Holmes , Shannon M. Danforth , Xiao-Yu Fu , Talia Y. Moore , Ram Vasudevan This is my paper · ORCID
classification q-bio.QM
keywords stabilitybasinsit-to-standfallriskreachabilityanalysisboundedfeedforward-feedbackcontrolperturbativebalanceexperimentcenter-of-massdynamics
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that a person's resilience during sit-to-stand can be predicted ahead of time by a computed 'stability basin' — the set of body states from which, under their own control strategy, they can reach standing without stepping or sitting back down. The study built individualized basins from the motion of 11 people and checked them against an experiment that pulled subjects forward or backward by a cable while they rose. The basins flagged over 90% of actual failures before the step or sit occurred and correctly accepted over 95% of successful trials. Such a result matters because current clinical fall-risk tests have weak predictive power, whereas an accurate basin could give therapists a quantitative, subject-specific measure of stability and guide assistive devices.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Stability Basin, defined for each subject and sit-to-stand strategy as the set of times and body states from which the model can reach standing without violating control limits. Body motion is represented by a Telescoping Inverted Pendulum Model: a point mass at the center of mass with separate horizontal and vertical position and velocity states. Two data-driven objects make the basin match the individual: a 'bounded feedforward plus feedback' (BFF+FB) controller, whose feedforward term may range over an envelope fitted by quadratic programming to the inverse-dynamics inputs of all successful trials, and a standing set formed as a zonotope — a symmetric polytope described by a center and generators — that encloses the final states of successful trials, with each generator expanded by 5%. Reachability analysis flows the standing set backward through time under the pendulum dynamics and input envelope, yielding time-indexed basins; a trial is predicted to fail if its observed trajectory exits the basin before the step or sit event, and to succeed if it never exits.

What would settle it

Run cable-pull trials that deliberately push a subject through states the basin labels unsafe while coaching them to recover with a strategy that never appears in the successful trials used to build the basin (for example, a quick corrective step); if those trials are recovered without stepping or sitting, the envelope under-covers the true stable region. A cheaper check is to rebuild each basin with the standing set expanded by 0% and by 20% instead of 5% and see whether the reported accuracy survives; if it changes sharply, the headline numbers depend on that tuning choice.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a Stability Basin — the set of body states from which a person can finish standing under their own control strategy — can be computed from successful trials alone and then, in a perturbed trial, correctly separates recoverable perturbations from those that force a strategy switch. In the experiment, cable pulls applied to the waist of 11 subjects during natural, momentum-transfer, and quasi-static sit-to-stand motions produced 198 trials in which the subject stepped or sat back down; such events define failure. State trajectories from motion capture were checked against each subject's basin, and the basin predicted 110 of 121 steps and 71 of 77 sits before their onset (failure accuracy 90.9% and 92.2%, combined 91.4%), while 718 of 750 successful trials stayed inside the basin (95.7%). Three alternative constructions — a linear-quadratic regulator controller, a single feedforward-plus-feedback controller, and a naive envelope around successful trajectories — predicted successful trials only 9.5%, 46.8%, and 16.7% of the time, respectively, meaning they grossly under-estimate the stable region. The paper concludes that the bounded, data-driven input model is what makes the basin both accurate and not overly conservative.

Load-bearing premise

The whole prediction rests on the assumption that the forces a person applied and the standing poses observed during successful trials cover every recovery strategy that person could actually use; if a person recovers using an action outside that observed range, the computed basin will flag them as unstable even though they are not.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The method classifies whether a perturbed sit-to-stand trial will end in a step or sit before that event occurs, using only center-of-mass kinematics from the trial.
  • Because the basin is built exclusively from successful trials, it can be applied to frail or fall-prone individuals without ever perturbing them to the point of falling.
  • Each strategy-specific basin computes in under a second on a laptop, which makes the approach fast enough for clinical screening or for near-real-time feedback.
  • Repeated assessments could track whether an individual's basin shrinks or grows over time, giving a quantitative, task-specific fall-risk monitoring tool.
  • Wearable assistive devices could use the basin as a safety constraint or optimization target, adjusting support when the user is about to exit the stable region.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper's 17 misclassified failures lie, on average, closer to successful trajectories and occur earlier in the pull than correct failure predictions, which suggests the basin edge is a gray zone rather than a hard boundary — a possibility the paper does not test.
  • Varying the 5% expansion of the standing set (for instance, 0% and 20%) would show how much of the reported accuracy depends on that tuning constant; the paper does not report such a sensitivity check.
  • If a person can recover with a strategy never shown in the successful trials used to fit the input envelope — such as a deliberate lunge — the method would label it a failure; a protocol that elicits and tests such alternate recoveries could expose under-coverage of the envelope.
  • The same backwards-reachability pipeline should transfer to other aperiodic tasks, such as step-ups or reaching, provided the completion set and failure definitions are equally well specified; this is a natural next application not addressed in the paper.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a data-driven method to compute subject- and strategy-specific Stability Basins (SBs) for the Sit-to-Stand (STS) task, using a Telescoping Inverted Pendulum Model, bounded feedforward-plus-feedback (BFF+FB) control bounds estimated from successful trials (Eqs. 6-8), and a standing zonotope XT built from successful final states. The SB is computed by backwards reachability with CORA. The method is validated on an 11-subject perturbative STS experiment with 948 trials, including 198 cable-pull-induced failures (steps and sits). The authors report that SBs predict 90.91% of steps and 92.21% of sits before failure onset, and 95.73% of successful trials in a leave-one-out procedure, outperforming LQR, FF+FB, and naive trajectory-envelope baselines. The central claim is that a stability basin constructed only from successful-trial kinematics and control bounds can classify whether a perturbed STS trial will end in a step or sit before the failure occurs.

Significance. If the validation is sound, this is a significant methodological contribution: it provides the first experimental validation of a reachability-based Stability Basin for an aperiodic, non-periodic movement, and it does so with a computationally tractable pipeline (about 0.76 s per SB) that uses only successful trials, which is clinically attractive. The comparison against LQR, FF+FB, and a naive envelope is a useful benchmark, and the data/code release (GitHub) supports reproducibility. However, the central validation claim is currently not established at the level the abstract implies: the pooled 'over 90%' failure rate is not achieved in the Momentum-Transfer condition, and a substantial fraction of failure trials have their defined onset after the normalized trial end, where the terminal-set check may make failure predictions nearly tautological. These issues are addressable with additional analysis of the existing data, so the contribution is potentially strong but needs revision.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 2.4.1, Table 1] The resetting of tf to 1 for failures whose onset occurs after the trial end, combined with a standing zonotope XT built exclusively from successful final states, makes the terminal check x(1)∈XT nearly tautological for late-onset failures. Table 1 reports mean step onsets of 107.27% (natural) and 114.30% (MT) of normalized trial time with standard deviations of 20.92 and 32.66; assuming approximate normality, roughly 60-70% of natural and MT step trials have onset after t=1. For those trials, the prediction is based on the full trajectory up to t=1, and any exit from the SB—including an exit at t=1 because the subject has not reached the successful standing set—counts as a correct failure prediction. Because the paper does not report first-exit times or the lead time between the first SB exit and tf, the reported 90.91% step and 92.21% sit rates do not establish that the SB boundary is crossed before the behavioral failure. Please report the fraction of failure trials with tf>1, the distribution of first-exit times, and re-compute accuracy using only trials with tf≤1 and with a minimum lead-time requirement.
  2. [Abstract, Table 2] The headline claim of 'over 90% accuracy' for failure predictions is a pooled rate that is not achieved in the Momentum-Transfer condition. Table 2 reports 33/40 (82.5%) steps and 17/19 (84.75%) sits for MT, while natural and QS strategies are at least 92%. The abstract and introduction state an unqualified 'over 90%' accuracy, which is unsupported for a full third of the tested strategy conditions. Please report per-strategy rates with confidence intervals and qualify the abstract claim accordingly.
  3. [Sec. 2.3.1, Remark 3] The input envelope used to construct the SB is fit only to the non-perturbed portions of successful cable-pull trials; the reactive control inputs during the 250 ms perturbation are discarded in the inverse-dynamics computation. Thus the BFF+FB set does not actually cover the control inputs a human uses to recover from the perturbation, which is the central modeling assumption the validation is intended to test. If the envelope is too narrow during the perturbation window, the SB will be overconservative and failure predictions will be inflated. Please report how many successful trials contribute to the envelope at each time step, and compare failure-prediction rates for SB variants that include perturbed-window inputs from successful CP trials or use an explicitly enlarged input bound during perturbation.
  4. [Sec. 2.4.3, Table 2] All prediction rates are pooled across 11 subjects and across trials without accounting for within-subject correlation or reporting subject-level variability. Because each subject contributes many trials (for example, 591 cable-pull trials across subjects), a small number of subjects could dominate the aggregate. Please provide per-subject accuracy tables, confidence intervals (e.g., by bootstrap or a mixed-effects model), and the range of per-subject success and failure prediction rates.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 2.4.3] The leave-one-out description is ambiguous: 'After forming the standing set, we leave one successful trial out...'—it is not clear whether the left-out trial's final state is included in the standing zonotope XT. If it is, the t=1 membership of that trial is guaranteed by construction; please clarify and, if appropriate, also leave the trial out of the XT construction.
  2. [Sec. 2.5.1] The LQR weighting matrices Q=I and R=10^-4 I are reported as 'found empirically to produce the best results,' but the data used for this tuning are not specified. If the weights were tuned on the validation set, the comparison in Table 4 is biased; please state the tuning procedure and whether the validation data were used.
  3. [Table 4, Sec. 3] The statement that the SB 'estimates the stable region with over 45% more accuracy' is not defined precisely. The table mixes success and failure rates with different denominators; please report a single pre-specified accuracy metric (e.g., balanced accuracy or Matthews correlation coefficient) and give per-strategy values.
  4. [General] The paper would benefit from confidence intervals or Bayesian credible intervals for the main prediction rates; with only 11 subjects and modest numbers of failures per strategy, the reported percentages (e.g., 17/19 sits for MT) have wide uncertainty.
  5. [Appendix B] The phrase 'where the times at which the peak horizontal COM velocities occur are coincident' should specify whether the alignment is done on filtered data and whether the same alignment is used for all strategies; the QS procedure uses vertical COM velocity, which is a different criterion and could affect comparability.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Part of the reported accuracy is by construction: late failures are scored as exits from the successful-final-state set at t=1, and the standing set is not left out when 'predicting' successful trials.

  1. self definitional [Sec. 2.4.1 (Determining onset of failure); Sec. 2.4.3 (Evaluation procedure); Table 1 note]
    "Since we are using a procedure based on an average nominal trial for aligning and segmenting trials (detailed in Appendix B), it is possible for the onset of stepping or sitting to occur after the trial end time t = 1. ... We consider a trial with a step or sit occurring later than the trial’s end to be unsuccessful, and set t f = 1 in this case. If x exits the SB at any time step, the trial is predicted to fail."

    For a trial with t_f = 1, the prediction uses the whole interval [0,1]. The SB is computed as the backward reachable set from the standing set XT, so at t = 1 the SB is XT (up to CORA overapproximation). The failure prediction therefore reduces to checking whether x(1) lies outside XT, the zonotope built from the final states of successful trials. Table 1 reports mean step onsets of 107.27% (natural) and 114.30% (MT) and a mean MT sit onset of 99.38%, and the paper says such late onsets were 'often' observed. For these trials the reported 'predicted prior to onset' result is a terminal-set membership test (not in the successful-endpoint set) rather than evidence that the reachable dynamics anticipated the step or sit.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 2.3.2 (Generating the standing set); Sec. 2.4.3 (Evaluation procedure)]
    "We define XT⊂ X as a zonotope that encompasses the final states (i.e., the states at 100%STS) of all successful trials observed for a given STS strategy. ... After forming the standing set, we leave one successful trial out of the BFF+FB computations in (8)."

    The leave-one-out excludes the tested successful trial only from the BFF+FB controller fit, not from the standing set. Since the SB is the backward reachable set from XT, the tested trial’s final state is guaranteed to be inside the SB at t = 1 by construction. The reported 95.73% successful-trial accuracy therefore includes a terminal-time component that is true by definition. The naive method, by contrast, is assessed with a leave-one-out envelope; if it included the tested trial it would also score near 100% at the terminal time. This unequal handling inflates the BFF+FB success rate and the claimed >45% improvement over alternatives.

full rationale

The paper is not globally circular: the BFF+FB input bounds are genuinely fit on successful trials and then tested on left-out successes and on all failures, and the failure ground truth (step/sit) is externally observed and was not used to build the SB. The comparison to the naive envelope also shows that reachability adds some discrimination. However, two evaluation choices make parts of the headline accuracies true by construction. First, for late failures t_f is reset to 1, so the prediction horizon ends at the terminal set; since the SB at t=1 is the standing set XT, the failure prediction for those trials reduces to a terminal-set membership test rather than a dynamical prediction. Second, the leave-one-out procedure for successful trials leaves the standing set intact, so the tested successful trial’s endpoint is inside XT by construction; this inflates the reported success rate and makes the comparison to the naive method unequal. The self-citation to Shia et al. (ref 31) is not the source of circularity: it supplies the SB concept and an LQR baseline, but the experimental validation here is independent of that citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on a chain of fitted data objects: the BFF+FB input envelope, the standing zonotope, segmentation constants, and failure thresholds. None of these are derived from first principles; all are estimated or chosen from the successful-trial dataset. The TIPM and BFF+FB controller structure are domain assumptions. There are no new physical entities.

free parameters (7)
  • BFF+FB input envelope (ff_lb, ff_ub, K(t)) = per time step, per subject, per strategy
    Fit by QP (8) to successful trials; directly determines SB size and shape.
  • Standing zonotope generator expansion = 5%
    Ad hoc expansion to keep observed final states off the boundary; changes SB volume.
  • LQR weighting matrices Q and R = Q=I4x4, R=1e-4 I2x2
    Selected empirically for best comparison performance; affects the LQR basin accuracy in Sec 2.5.1.
  • Toe displacement threshold = 3 inches in anterior-posterior direction
    Defines step onset in Sec 2.4.1; different thresholds change failure labels and measured accuracy.
  • Segmentation thresholds (Tmin, Tmax, start/end criteria) = Tmin=0.75 s, Tmax=1.5*Tnom, start at 20% max acceleration, end at 99% max vertical position
    Appendix B; determines trial length and normalized time, which directly affect the SB time axis.
  • Reachability time step = 0.005 (0.5% STS)
    Numerical discretization for SB; coarser steps change boundary over-approximation.
  • Cable-pull peak force levels = low, medium, high calibrated per subject
    Force levels manually adjusted based on height and weight; affects the distribution of failures but not the SB itself.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The telescoping inverted pendulum point-mass model in Eq. 3 captures the sagittal-plane COM dynamics relevant to STS stability.
    Used throughout Sec 2.2; ignores multi-segment joints, foot contact, and actuator limits.
  • domain assumption Successful-trial input bounds (BFF+FB, Eqs. 6-8) enclose all possible human recovery inputs for a given strategy.
    The controller model is fit only from successful trials and then used to define the basin boundary.
  • domain assumption A failure of control strategy is fully and correctly detected by stepping or sitting back down.
    Sec 2.1.3; the paper admits later in Sec 3 that a person could switch strategies without stepping or sitting.
  • ad hoc to paper The standing set XT is a zonotope with 5% expansion that covers all true standing states.
    Sec 2.3.2; expansion factor chosen to avoid edge cases, not derived from theory.
  • standard math CORA's reachability over-approximation of the linearized dynamics preserves the true stability boundary closely enough.
    Sec 2.3.3; the paper relies on CORA's zonotope reachability rather than proving convergence.
  • domain assumption Trial segmentation by matching to an average nominal trajectory does not systematically distort failure onset times.
    Appendix B; segmentation thresholds and alignment choices affect normalized time and the SB time axis.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Characterizing the limits of human stability during motion: perturbative experiment validates a model-based approach for the Sit-to-Stand task." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LDKGM7GR

@misc{pith2026190801876,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Characterizing the limits of human stability during motion: perturbative experiment validates a model-based approach for the Sit-to-Stand task},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LDKGM7GR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.01876}
}
read the original abstract

Falls affect a growing number of the population each year. Clinical methods to identify those at greatest risk for falls usually evaluate individuals while they perform specific motions such as balancing or Sit-to-Stand (STS). Unfortunately these techniques have been shown to have poor predictive power and are unable to identify the magnitude, direction, and timing of perturbations that can cause an individual to lose stability during motion. To address this limitation, the recently proposed Stability Basin (SB) aims to characterize the set of perturbations that will cause an individual to fall under a specific motor control strategy. The SB is defined as the set of configurations that do not lead to failure for an individual under their chosen control strategy. This paper presents a novel method to compute the SB and the first experimental validation of the SB with an 11-person perturbative STS experiment involving forwards or backwards pulls from a motor-driven cable. The individually-constructed SBs are used to identify when a trial fails, i.e., when an individual must switch control strategies (indicated by a step or sit) to recover from a perturbation. The constructed SBs correctly predict the outcome of trials where failure was observed with over 90% accuracy, and correctly predict the outcome of successful trials with over 95% accuracy. The SB was compared to three other methods and was found to estimate the stable region with over 45% more accuracy in all cases. This study demonstrates that SBs offer a novel model-based approach for quantifying stability during motion, which could be used in physical therapy for individuals at risk of falling.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.01876 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An illustrative overview of SBs for STS. The SB represents the set of model states through time that will successfully arrive at a standing set for a given individual and STS strategy. Trajectories of the model are illustrated, where the times that perturbations are applied are denoted by the dashed lines. Trajectories that exit the SB are predicted to lead to stepping or sitting. 2/19 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Subjects began from a seated position with their arms crossed against their chests. The subject’s COM is illustrated by filled circles. Cable-pulls applied to the subject sometimes caused them to step or sit; otherwise, the trial was considered to be successful. 4/19 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. These figures show how we construct the BFF+FB controller from data. The process is shown for ux, and is identical for uy. In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: This figure illustrates how XT is formed from data for a given subject and strategy. The states (rx and vx) at 100% STS of each observed successful trial within a strategy are illustrated as blue dots. An example XT represented by the shaded blue zonotope contains all …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: This figure illustrates how to check if a point is inside or outside of a zonotope. An example zonotope (shaded grey) is parameterized by its center c and generator vectors g (1) and g (2) . A test point p is contained within the zonotope, since the maximum absolute va…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: This figure shows example nominal trajectories for each STS strategy for subject ID 8. 2.5.3 Naive method Stability can be estimated from observed perturbed trials by simply drawing a volume around the state trajectories of the observed successful trials. This method d…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Maximum ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The computed natural strategy SB for subject ID 6. The horizontal and vertical projections of the SB are represented as the regions encapsulated by the light grey borders. The projection of the standing set XT is shown as the dark grey region on the right side of each …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: This figure compares the predictive accuracy of the SBs formed using the BFF+FB controller to three other methods. Results are presented for each STS strategy, aggregated across subjects. The BFF+FB controller’s predictions for both successes and failures are near the …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: This figure illustrates the segmentation procedure. Step 2(b) of the procedure is depicted in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Falls in older people: Epidemiology, risk factors and strategies for prevention

    Rubenstein, L. Falls in older people: Epidemiology, risk factors and strategies for prevention. Age Ageing 35 Suppl 2, ii37–ii41, DOI: 10.1093/ageing/afl084 (2006)

    work page doi:10.1093/ageing/a 2006

  2. [2]

    A study of the U.S. domestic air transportation network: Temporal evolution of network topology and robustness from 2001 to 2016

    Stevens, J. A., Corso, P. S., Finkelstein, E. A. & Miller, T. R. The costs of fatal and non-fatal falls among older adults. Inj. Prev. 12, 290–295, DOI: 10.1136/ip.2005.011015 (2006). https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/12/5/290.full.pdf

    work page Pith review arXiv 2006

  3. [3]

    & König, H.-H

    Heinrich, S., Rapp, K., Rissmann, U., Becker, C. & König, H.-H. Cost of falls in old age: a systematic review. Osteoporos. Int. 21, 891–902, DOI: 10.1007/s00198-009-1100-1 (2010). 14/19

    work page doi:10.1007/s00198-009-1100-1 2010

  4. [4]

    C., Devlin, N., Gardner, M

    Robertson, M. C., Devlin, N., Gardner, M. M. & Campbell, A. J. Effectiveness and economic evaluation of a nurse delivered home exercise programme to prevent falls. 1: Randomised controlled trial. BMJ 322, 697, DOI: 10.1136/bmj.322.7288.697 (2001). http://www.bmj.com/content/322/7288/697.full.pdf

    work page doi:10.1136/bmj.322.7288.697 2001

  5. [5]

    & Gerschlager, W

    Bloem, B., Boers, I., Cramer, M., Westendorp, R. & Gerschlager, W. Falls in the elderly. i. identification of risk factors. Wiener klinische Wochenschrift 113, 352–62 (2001)

    work page 2001

  6. [6]

    Network analysis and disease subnets for the SARS-CoV-2/Human interactome

    Delbaere, K., Hauer, K. & Lord, S. Evaluation of the incidental and planned exercise questionnaire (ipeq) for older people. Br. J. Sports Medicine 44, 1029–34, DOI: 10.1136/bjsm.2009.060350 (2009)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2009

  7. [7]

    Hauer, K. et al. Validation of the falls efficacy scale and falls efficacy scale international in geriatric patients with and without cognitive impairment: Results of self-report and interview-based questionnaires. J. Gerontol. 56, 190–9, DOI: 10.1159/000236027 (2009)

    work page doi:10.1159/000236027 2009

  8. [8]

    Measuring balance in the elderly: Preliminary development of an instrument

    Berg, K. Measuring balance in the elderly: Preliminary development of an instrument. Physiother. Can. 41, 304–311, DOI: 10.3138/ptc.41.6.304 (1989)

    work page doi:10.3138/ptc.41.6.304 1989

Show all 54 references
  1. [9]

    & Richardson, S

    Podsiadlo, D. & Richardson, S. The timed up and go: A test of basic functional mobility for frail elderly persons. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 39, 142–8, DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.1991.tb01616.x. (1991)

    1991

  2. [10]

    & Gustafson, Y

    Lundin-Olsson, L., Nyberg, L. & Gustafson, Y . Stops walking when talking as a predictor of falls in the elderly.Lancet 349, 617, DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(97)24009-2 (1997)

    1997 doi

  3. [11]

    Weinstein, N

    D. Weinstein, N. Unrealistic optimism about susceptibility to health problems: Conclusions from a community-wide sample. J. Behav. Medicine 10, 481–500, DOI: 10.1007/BF00846146 (1987)

    1987 doi

  4. [12]

    Response bias, social desirability and dissimulation

    Furnham, A. Response bias, social desirability and dissimulation. Pers. Individ. Differ. 7, 385–400, DOI: 10.1016/ 0191-8869(86)90014-0 (1986)

    1986

  5. [13]

    & Woollacott, M

    Shumway-Cook, A., Brauer, S. & Woollacott, M. Predicting the probability for falls in community-dwelling older adults using the timed up & go test. Phys. Ther. 80, 896–903, DOI: 10.1093/ptj/80.9.896 (2000). /oup/backfile/content_public/ journal/ptj/80/9/10.1093_ptj_80.9.896/3/p...

    2000 doi

  6. [14]

    & Mollinger, L

    Steffen, T., Hacker, T. & Mollinger, L. Age- and gender-related test performance in community-dwelling elderly people: Six-minute walk test, berg balance scale, timed up & go test, and gait speeds. Phys. Ther. 82, 128–37 (2002)

    2002

  7. [15]

    C., Simonsen, O., Sinkjaer, T

    Laessoe, U., Hoeck, H. C., Simonsen, O., Sinkjaer, T. & V oigt, M. Fall risk in an active elderly population - can it be assessed? J. Negat. Results Biomed. 6, 2, DOI: 10.1186/1477-5751-6-2 (2007)

    2007 doi

  8. [16]

    W., Berg, K., Chesworth, B

    Muir, S. W., Berg, K., Chesworth, B. & Speechley, M. Use of the berg balance scale for predicting multiple falls in community-dwelling elderly people: A prospective study. Phys. Ther. 88, 449–459, DOI: 10.2522/ptj.20070251 (2008). /oup/backfile/content_public/journal/ptj/88/4/1...

    2008 doi

  9. [17]

    Hausdorff, J., A. Rios, D. & K. Edelberg, H. Gait variability and fall risk in community-living older adults: A 1-year prospective study. Arch. Phys. Medicine Rehabil. 82, 1050–6, DOI: 10.1053/apmr.2001.24893 (2001)

    2001

  10. [18]

    Lockhart, T. E. & Liu, J. Differentiating fall-prone and healthy adults using local dynamic stability. Ergonomics 51, 1860–1872, DOI: 10.1080/00140130802567079 (2008). PMID: 19034782, https://doi.org/10.1080/00140130802567079

    2008 doi

  11. [19]

    Biomechanical and age-related differences in balance recovery using the tether-release method

    Hsiao-Wecksler, E. Biomechanical and age-related differences in balance recovery using the tether-release method. J. Electromyogr. Kinesiol. 18, 179–87, DOI: 10.1016/j.jelekin.2007.06.007 (2008)

    2008 doi

  12. [20]

    A., Salapaka, S

    Hur, P., Duiser, B. A., Salapaka, S. M. & Hsiao-Wecksler, E. T. Measuring robustness of the postural control system to a mild impulsive perturbation. IEEE Transactions on Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 18, 461–467, DOI: 10.1109/TNSRE.2010. 2052133 (2010)

    2010 doi

  13. [21]

    & Van Dieen, J

    Bruijn, S., Meijer, O., Beek, P. & Van Dieen, J. Assessing the stability of human locomotion: a review of current measures. J. Royal Soc. Interface 11, DOI: 10.1098/rsif.2013.0900 (2014)

    2014

  14. [22]

    & Dériaz, O

    Terrier, P. & Dériaz, O. Kinematic variability, fractal dynamics and local dynamic stability of treadmill walking. J. NeuroEngineering Rehabil. 8, 12, DOI: 10.1186/1743-0003-8-12 (2011)

    2011 doi

  15. [23]

    & Cavanagh, P

    Dingwell, J., Cusumano, J., Sternad, D. & Cavanagh, P. Slower speeds in patients with diabetic neuropathy lead to improved local dynamic stability of continuous overground walking. J. Biomech. 33, 1269 – 1277, DOI: https: //doi.org/10.1016/S0021-9290(00)00092-0 (2000)

    2000 doi

  16. [24]

    J., Borrie, M

    Campbell, A. J., Borrie, M. J. & Spears, G. F. Risk factors for falls in a community-based prospective study of people 70 years and older. J. Gerontol. 44, 112–117 (1989)

    1989

  17. [25]

    & Sinke, W

    Hof, A., Gazendam, M. & Sinke, W. The condition for dynamic stability. J. Biomech. 38, 1–8 (2005). 15/19

    2005

  18. [26]

    & Patton, J

    Pai, Y .-C. & Patton, J. Center of mass velocity-position predictions for balance control.J. Biomech. 30, 347 – 354, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0021-9290(96)00165-0 (1997)

    1997 doi

  19. [27]

    & Corbeil, P

    Simoneau, M. & Corbeil, P. The effect of time to peak ankle torque on balance stability boundary: experimental validation of a biomechanical model. Exp. Brain Res. 165, 217–228, DOI: 10.1007/s00221-005-2290-1 (2005)

    2005 doi

  20. [28]

    & Chou, L.-S

    Fujimoto, M. & Chou, L.-S. Dynamic balance control during sit-to-stand movement: An examination with the center of mass acceleration. J. Biomech. 45, 543 – 548, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2011.11.037 (2012)

    2012 doi

  21. [29]

    & Studenski, S

    Hughes, M., Weiner, D., Schenkman, M., Long, R. & Studenski, S. Chair rise strategies in the elderly. Clin. Biomech. 9, 187 – 192, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0268-0033(94)90020-5 (1994)

    1994 doi

  22. [30]

    Krebs, D

    Riley, P., E. Krebs, D. & A. Popat, R. Biomechanical analysis of failed sit-to-stand. In IEEE Transactions on Rehabilitation Engineering, vol. 5, 353–9 (1998)

    1998

  23. [31]

    & Vasudevan, R

    Shia, V ., Moore, T., Holmes, P., Bajcsy, R. & Vasudevan, R. Stability basin estimates fall risk from observed kinematics, demonstrated on sit-to-stand task. J. Biomech. (2018)

    2018

  24. [32]

    C-Motion Inc., Germantown, MD, USA

    Visual3D. C-Motion Inc., Germantown, MD, USA

  25. [33]

    The MathWorks, Natick, MA, USA

    MATLAB Statistics and Machine Learning Toolbox (2017). The MathWorks, Natick, MA, USA

    2017

  26. [34]

    Winter, D. A. Biomechanics and Motor Control of Human Movement (John Wiley & Sons, 2005)

    2005

  27. [35]

    & Cappozzo, A

    Papa, E. & Cappozzo, A. A telescopic inverted-pendulum model of the musculo-skeletal system and its use for the analysis of the sit-to-stand motor task. J. Biomech. 32, 1205 – 1212, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0021-9290(99)00103-7 (1999)

    1999 doi

  28. [36]

    The relative roles of feedforward and feedback in the control of rhythmic movements

    Kuo, A. The relative roles of feedforward and feedback in the control of rhythmic movements. Mot. control 6, 129–145 (2002)

    2002

  29. [37]

    Optimality principles in sensorimotor control

    Todorov, E. Optimality principles in sensorimotor control. Nat. Neurosci. 7, 907–915, DOI: 10.1038/nn1309 (2004)

    2004 doi

  30. [38]

    Winter, D. A. The Biomechanics and Motor Control of Human Gait: Normal, Elderly and Pathological (Waterloo Biomechanics, 1991)

    1991

  31. [39]

    & Buss, M

    Althoff, M., Stursberg, O. & Buss, M. Reachability analysis of nonlinear systems with uncertain parameters using conservative linearization. In 2008 47th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, 4042–4048, DOI: 10.1109/CDC.2008. 4738704 (2008)

    2008 doi

  32. [40]

    & Krogh, B

    Stursberg, O. & Krogh, B. H. Efficient representation and computation of reachable sets for hybrid systems. In Hybrid Systems: Computation and Control, 482–497, DOI: 10.1007/3-540-36580-X_35 (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2003)

    doi

  33. [41]

    An introduction to CORA 2015

    Althoff, M. An introduction to CORA 2015. In Applied Verification for Continuous and Hybrid Systems, 120–151 (2015)

    2015

  34. [42]

    & Grebenyuk, D

    Althoff, M. & Grebenyuk, D. Implementation of interval arithmetic in CORA 2016. In Applied Verification for Continuous and Hybrid Systems, 91–105 (2016)

    2016

  35. [43]

    & Rodman, L

    Lancaster, P. & Rodman, L. The Algebraic Riccati Equation, vol. 14 (1995)

    1995

  36. [44]

    & Chou, L.-S

    Fujimoto, M. & Chou, L.-S. Region of stability derived by center of mass acceleration better identifies individuals with difficulty in sit-to-stand movement. Annals Biomed. Eng. 42, 733–741, DOI: 10.1007/s10439-013-0945-9 (2014)

    2014 doi

  37. [45]

    & Srinivasan, M

    Wang, Y . & Srinivasan, M. Stepping in the direction of the fall: the next foot placement can be predicted from current upper body state in steady-state walking. Biol. Lett. 10, 20140405, DOI: 10.1098/rsbl.2014.0405 (2014). https:// royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/r...

    2014

  38. [46]

    Park, S., Horak, F. B. & Kuo, A. D. Postural feedback responses scale with biomechanical constraints in human standing. Exp. Brain Res. 154, 417–427, DOI: 10.1007/s00221-003-1674-3 (2004)

    2004 doi

  39. [47]

    & Sheikh, Y

    Cao, Z., Simon, T., Wei, S.-E. & Sheikh, Y . Realtime multi-person 2D pose estimation using part affinity fields. InCVPR (2017)

    2017

  40. [48]

    Derivation of formulae used to calculate energy expenditure in man

    M Brockway, J. Derivation of formulae used to calculate energy expenditure in man. Clin. Nutr. 41, 463–71 (1987)

    1987

  41. [49]

    & David Remy, C

    R Koller, J., Gates, D., Ferris, D. & David Remy, C. ’body-in-the-loop’ optimization of assistive robotic devices: A validation study. In Robotics: Science and Systems, DOI: 10.15607/RSS.2016.XII.007 (2016)

    2016 doi

  42. [50]

    National Instruments

    LabVIEW. National Instruments. 16/19 A Generating cable pull perturbations Two high-torque motors were attached to cable-pulley systems and placed in front of and behind the test platform. The cables were attached to a belt around the subject’s waist, and the height of the pul...

  43. [51]

    Manually segment each trial, starting several seconds before the subject begins to stand and ending several seconds after they have reached standing

  44. [52]

    (b) Average the subject’s five nominal trials together to form a single average nominal COM position trajectory

    To create an average nominal trial: (a) Take the manual segmentations of the subject’s five nominal trials, and align their COM position trajectories such that the times at which the peak horizontal COM velocities occur are coincident. (b) Average the subject’s five nominal tria...

  45. [53]

    nominal traj

    To segment each trial: 17/19 Raw nominal data Average nominal trajectory align peaks Raw data to segment Best scaled avg. nominal traj. Scaled avg. nominal traj. Best scaled avg. nominal traj. Figure 10. This figure illustrates the segmentation procedure. Step 2(b) of the proce...

  46. [54]

    Let Tmin = 0.75s and Tmax = 1.5Tnom

    To segment each QS trial: 18/19 (a) Iterate over times T∈ [Tmin,Tmax], where the interval is discretized into 100 samples. Let Tmin = 0.75s and Tmax = 1.5Tnom. (b) Rescale the average nominal trajectory to be defined over [0,T ]. (c) Manually align the scaled average nominal tr...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.