↓ Skip to main content

Passive Motion Paradigm: An Alternative to Optimal Control

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neurorobotics, January 2011
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Readers on

mendeley
117 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
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
Passive Motion Paradigm: An Alternative to Optimal Control
Published in
Frontiers in Neurorobotics, January 2011
DOI 10.3389/fnbot.2011.00004
Pubmed ID
Authors

Vishwanathan Mohan, Pietro Morasso

Abstract

IN THE LAST YEARS, OPTIMAL CONTROL THEORY (OCT) HAS EMERGED AS THE LEADING APPROACH FOR INVESTIGATING NEURAL CONTROL OF MOVEMENT AND MOTOR COGNITION FOR TWO COMPLEMENTARY RESEARCH LINES: behavioral neuroscience and humanoid robotics. In both cases, there are general problems that need to be addressed, such as the "degrees of freedom (DoFs) problem," the common core of production, observation, reasoning, and learning of "actions." OCT, directly derived from engineering design techniques of control systems quantifies task goals as "cost functions" and uses the sophisticated formal tools of optimal control to obtain desired behavior (and predictions). We propose an alternative "softer" approach passive motion paradigm (PMP) that we believe is closer to the biomechanics and cybernetics of action. The basic idea is that actions (overt as well as covert) are the consequences of an internal simulation process that "animates" the body schema with the attractor dynamics of force fields induced by the goal and task-specific constraints. This internal simulation offers the brain a way to dynamically link motor redundancy with task-oriented constraints "at runtime," hence solving the "DoFs problem" without explicit kinematic inversion and cost function computation. We argue that the function of such computational machinery is not only restricted to shaping motor output during action execution but also to provide the self with information on the feasibility, consequence, understanding and meaning of "potential actions." In this sense, taking into account recent developments in neuroscience (motor imagery, simulation theory of covert actions, mirror neuron system) and in embodied robotics, PMP offers a novel framework for understanding motor cognition that goes beyond the engineering control paradigm provided by OCT. Therefore, the paper is at the same time a review of the PMP rationale, as a computational theory, and a perspective presentation of how to develop it for designing better cognitive architectures.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 117 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 3%
France 2 2%
Germany 2 2%
Japan 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Unknown 108 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 32 27%
Researcher 25 21%
Student > Master 8 7%
Other 6 5%
Professor 6 5%
Other 26 22%
Unknown 14 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 31 26%
Computer Science 20 17%
Neuroscience 17 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 4%
Other 19 16%
Unknown 19 16%
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 30 May 2013.
All research outputs
#14,740,534
of 22,689,790 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neurorobotics
#392
of 844 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#138,640
of 180,374 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neurorobotics
#2
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,689,790 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 844 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% 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 180,374 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 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.