↓ Skip to main content

Analysis of Accuracy in Pointing with Redundant Hand-held Tools: A Geometric Approach to the Uncontrolled Manifold Method

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS Computational Biology, April 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
66 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
Analysis of Accuracy in Pointing with Redundant Hand-held Tools: A Geometric Approach to the Uncontrolled Manifold Method
Published in
PLoS Computational Biology, April 2013
DOI 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002978
Pubmed ID
Authors

Domenico Campolo, Ferdinan Widjaja, Hong Xu, Wei Tech Ang, Etienne Burdet

Abstract

This work introduces a coordinate-independent method to analyse movement variability of tasks performed with hand-held tools, such as a pen or a surgical scalpel. We extend the classical uncontrolled manifold (UCM) approach by exploiting the geometry of rigid body motions, used to describe tool configurations. In particular, we analyse variability during a static pointing task with a hand-held tool, where subjects are asked to keep the tool tip in steady contact with another object. In this case the tool is redundant with respect to the task, as subjects control position/orientation of the tool, i.e. 6 degrees-of-freedom (dof), to maintain the tool tip position (3dof) steady. To test the new method, subjects performed a pointing task with and without arm support. The additional dof introduced in the unsupported condition, injecting more variability into the system, represented a resource to minimise variability in the task space via coordinated motion. The results show that all of the seven subjects channeled more variability along directions not directly affecting the task (UCM), consistent with previous literature but now shown in a coordinate-independent way. Variability in the unsupported condition was only slightly larger at the endpoint but much larger in the UCM.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 3%
Netherlands 1 2%
Belgium 1 2%
Spain 1 2%
Japan 1 2%
Unknown 60 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 27%
Researcher 10 15%
Student > Master 9 14%
Professor 4 6%
Other 4 6%
Other 9 14%
Unknown 12 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 17 26%
Psychology 9 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 12%
Sports and Recreations 6 9%
Neuroscience 4 6%
Other 6 9%
Unknown 16 24%
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 April 2013.
All research outputs
#20,656,820
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from PLoS Computational Biology
#8,208
of 8,960 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#163,224
of 212,592 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS Computational Biology
#131
of 157 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,960 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.4. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% 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 212,592 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 157 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.