| Title |
The speed-curvature power law of movements: a reappraisal
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Experimental Brain Research, October 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00221-017-5108-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Myrka Zago, Adam Matic, Tamar Flash, Alex Gomez-Marin, Francesco Lacquaniti |
| Abstract |
Several types of curvilinear movements obey approximately the so called 2/3 power law, according to which the angular speed varies proportionally to the 2/3 power of the curvature. The origin of the law is debated but it is generally thought to depend on physiological mechanisms. However, a recent paper (Marken and Shaffer, Exp Brain Res 88:685-690, 2017) claims that this power law is simply a statistical artifact, being a mathematical consequence of the way speed and curvature are calculated. Here we reject this hypothesis by showing that the speed-curvature power law of biological movements is non-trivial. First, we confirm that the power exponent varies with the shape of human drawing movements and with environmental factors. Second, we report experimental data from Drosophila larvae demonstrating that the power law does not depend on how curvature is calculated. Third, we prove that the law can be violated by means of several mathematical and physical examples. Finally, we discuss biological constraints that may underlie speed-curvature power laws discovered in empirical studies. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 51 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 29% |
| Researcher | 11 | 22% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 10% |
| Professor | 5 | 10% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 6 | 12% |
| Unknown | 7 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Neuroscience | 13 | 25% |
| Engineering | 10 | 20% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 8% |
| Psychology | 4 | 8% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 7 | 14% |
| Unknown | 10 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 26 March 2018.
All research outputs
#15,498,204
of 23,031,582 outputs
Outputs from Experimental Brain Research
#2,017
of 3,242 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#205,332
of 327,905 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Experimental Brain Research
#25
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,031,582 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,242 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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 327,905 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.