↓ Skip to main content

Double-well dynamics of noise-driven control activation in human intermittent control: the case of stick balancing

Overview of attention for article published in Cognitive Processing, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
14 Mendeley
Title
Double-well dynamics of noise-driven control activation in human intermittent control: the case of stick balancing
Published in
Cognitive Processing, May 2015
DOI 10.1007/s10339-015-0653-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Arkady Zgonnikov, Ihor Lubashevsky

Abstract

When facing a task of balancing a dynamic system near an unstable equilibrium, humans often adopt intermittent control strategy: Instead of continuously controlling the system, they repeatedly switch the control on and off. Paradigmatic example of such a task is stick balancing. Despite the simplicity of the task itself, the complexity of human intermittent control dynamics in stick balancing still puzzles researchers in motor control. Here we attempt to model one of the key mechanisms of human intermittent control, control activation, using as an example the task of overdamped stick balancing. In doing so, we focus on the concept of noise-driven activation, a more general alternative to the conventional threshold-driven activation. We describe control activation as a random walk in an energy potential, which changes in response to the state of the controlled system. By way of numerical simulations, we show that the developed model captures the core properties of human control activation observed previously in the experiments on overdamped stick balancing. Our results demonstrate that the double-well potential model provides tractable mathematical description of human control activation at least in the considered task and suggest that the adopted approach can potentially aid in understanding human intermittent control in more complex processes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 14 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 29%
Student > Master 2 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 14%
Lecturer 1 7%
Student > Bachelor 1 7%
Other 2 14%
Unknown 2 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 4 29%
Mathematics 1 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 7%
Arts and Humanities 1 7%
Other 4 29%
Unknown 2 14%
Attention Score in Context

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 04 May 2015.
All research outputs
#15,331,767
of 22,803,211 outputs
Outputs from Cognitive Processing
#189
of 338 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#157,001
of 264,364 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cognitive Processing
#6
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,803,211 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 338 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.1. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 264,364 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.