{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.019064124783362217, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.637931034482759, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Human control of an inverted pendulum: Is continuous control necessary? Is intermittent control effective? Is intermittent control physiological?

Homeostasis, the physiological control of variables such as body position, is founded on negative feedback mechanisms. The default understanding, consistent with a wealth of knowledge related to peripheral reflexes, is that feedback mechanisms controlling body position act continuously. For more than fifty years, it has been assumed that sustained control of position is best interpreted using continuous paradigms from engineering control theory such as those which regulate speed in a vehicle ‘cruise control’ system. Using a joystick to control an unstable load that falls over like a person fainting, we show that control using intermittent gentle taps is natural, more effective and robust to unexpected changes than continuous hand contact, works best with two taps per second, and can explain the upper frequency limit of control by both methods. Serial ballistic control, limited to an optimum rate, provides a new physiological paradigm for interpreting sustained control of posture and movement.