↓ Skip to main content

Time-Integrated Position Error Accounts for Sensorimotor Behavior in Time-Constrained Tasks

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, March 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
10 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
Time-Integrated Position Error Accounts for Sensorimotor Behavior in Time-Constrained Tasks
Published in
PLOS ONE, March 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0033724
Pubmed ID
Authors

Julian J. Tramper, Bart van den Broek, Wim Wiegerinck, Hilbert J. Kappen, Stan Gielen

Abstract

Several studies have shown that human motor behavior can be successfully described using optimal control theory, which describes behavior by optimizing the trade-off between the subject's effort and performance. This approach predicts that subjects reach the goal exactly at the final time. However, another strategy might be that subjects try to reach the target position well before the final time to avoid the risk of missing the target. To test this, we have investigated whether minimizing the control effort and maximizing the performance is sufficient to describe human motor behavior in time-constrained motor tasks. In addition to the standard model, we postulate a new model which includes an additional cost criterion which penalizes deviations between the position of the effector and the target throughout the trial, forcing arrival on target before the final time. To investigate which model gives the best fit to the data and to see whether that model is generic, we tested both models in two different tasks where subjects used a joystick to steer a ball on a screen to hit a target (first task) or one of two targets (second task) before a final time. Noise of different amplitudes was superimposed on the ball position to investigate the ability of the models to predict motor behavior for different levels of uncertainty. The results show that a cost function representing only a trade-off between effort and accuracy at the end time is insufficient to describe the observed behavior. The new model correctly predicts that subjects steer the ball to the target position well before the final time is reached, which is in agreement with the observed behavior. This result is consistent for all noise amplitudes and for both tasks.

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 10 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 10%
Belgium 1 10%
Unknown 8 80%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 40%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 40%
Professor 1 10%
Unknown 1 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 2 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 20%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 10%
Physics and Astronomy 1 10%
Computer Science 1 10%
Other 2 20%
Unknown 1 10%
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 21 March 2012.
All research outputs
#18,305,470
of 22,663,969 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#153,769
of 193,506 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#124,189
of 160,638 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#2,849
of 3,709 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,663,969 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 193,506 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% 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 160,638 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,709 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.