↓ Skip to main content

Are muscle synergies useful for neural control?

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
89 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
332 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Are muscle synergies useful for neural control?
Published in
Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fncom.2013.00019
Pubmed ID
Authors

Aymar de Rugy, Gerald E. Loeb, Timothy J. Carroll

Abstract

The observation that the activity of multiple muscles can be well approximated by a few linear synergies is viewed by some as a sign that such low-dimensional modules constitute a key component of the neural control system. Here, we argue that the usefulness of muscle synergies as a control principle should be evaluated in terms of errors produced not only in muscle space, but also in task space. We used data from a force-aiming task in two dimensions at the wrist, using an electromyograms (EMG)-driven virtual biomechanics technique that overcomes typical errors in predicting force from recorded EMG, to illustrate through simulation how synergy decomposition inevitably introduces substantial task space errors. Then, we computed the optimal pattern of muscle activation that minimizes summed-squared muscle activities, and demonstrated that synergy decomposition produced similar results on real and simulated data. We further assessed the influence of synergy decomposition on aiming errors (AEs) in a more redundant system, using the optimal muscle pattern computed for the elbow-joint complex (i.e., 13 muscles acting in two dimensions). Because EMG records are typically not available from all contributing muscles, we also explored reconstructions from incomplete sets of muscles. The redundancy of a given set of muscles had opposite effects on the goodness of muscle reconstruction and on task achievement; higher redundancy is associated with better EMG approximation (lower residuals), but with higher AEs. Finally, we showed that the number of synergies required to approximate the optimal muscle pattern for an arbitrary biomechanical system increases with task-space dimensionality, which indicates that the capacity of synergy decomposition to explain behavior depends critically on the scope of the original database. These results have implications regarding the viability of muscle synergy as a putative neural control mechanism, and also as a control algorithm to restore movements.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 332 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 10 3%
France 4 1%
United Kingdom 3 <1%
Spain 3 <1%
Brazil 2 <1%
Netherlands 2 <1%
Italy 2 <1%
Japan 2 <1%
Belgium 2 <1%
Other 3 <1%
Unknown 299 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 100 30%
Researcher 53 16%
Student > Master 43 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 21 6%
Other 18 5%
Other 61 18%
Unknown 36 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 130 39%
Neuroscience 53 16%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 34 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 24 7%
Sports and Recreations 17 5%
Other 24 7%
Unknown 50 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 March 2019.
All research outputs
#7,182,179
of 22,701,287 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
#395
of 1,336 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#80,242
of 280,698 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
#31
of 131 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,701,287 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,336 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 280,698 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 131 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.