↓ Skip to main content

Identification of optimal feedback control rules from micro-quadrotor and insect flight trajectories

Overview of attention for article published in Biological Cybernetics, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 Mendeley
Title
Identification of optimal feedback control rules from micro-quadrotor and insect flight trajectories
Published in
Biological Cybernetics, January 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00422-017-0742-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Imraan A. Faruque, Florian T. Muijres, Kenneth M. Macfarlane, Andrew Kehlenbeck, J. Sean Humbert

Abstract

This paper presents "optimal identification," a framework for using experimental data to identify the optimality conditions associated with the feedback control law implemented in the measurements. The technique compares closed loop trajectory measurements against a reduced order model of the open loop dynamics, and uses linear matrix inequalities to solve an inverse optimal control problem as a convex optimization that estimates the controller optimality conditions. In this study, the optimal identification technique is applied to two examples, that of a millimeter-scale micro-quadrotor with an engineered controller on board, and the example of a population of freely flying Drosophila hydei maneuvering about forward flight. The micro-quadrotor results show that the performance indices used to design an optimal flight control law for a micro-quadrotor may be recovered from the closed loop simulated flight trajectories, and the Drosophila results indicate that the combined effect of the insect longitudinal flight control sensing and feedback acts principally to regulate pitch rate.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 22 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 27%
Student > Master 4 18%
Student > Bachelor 3 14%
Researcher 2 9%
Professor 2 9%
Other 3 14%
Unknown 2 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 9 41%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 14%
Computer Science 2 9%
Physics and Astronomy 1 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 5%
Other 4 18%
Unknown 2 9%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 05 January 2018.
All research outputs
#14,718,998
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Biological Cybernetics
#490
of 688 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#243,902
of 445,123 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biological Cybernetics
#3
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 688 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 445,123 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.