↓ Skip to main content

The effect of whisker movement on radial distance estimation: a case study in comparative robotics

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neurorobotics, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 Mendeley
citeulike
1 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
The effect of whisker movement on radial distance estimation: a case study in comparative robotics
Published in
Frontiers in Neurorobotics, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fnbot.2012.00012
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mathew H. Evans, Charles W. Fox, Nathan F. Lepora, Martin J. Pearson, J. Charles Sullivan, Tony J. Prescott

Abstract

Whisker movement has been shown to be under active control in certain specialist animals such as rats and mice. Though this whisker movement is well characterized, the role and effect of this movement on subsequent sensing is poorly understood. One method for investigating this phenomena is to generate artificial whisker deflections with robotic hardware under different movement conditions. A limitation of this approach is that assumptions must be made in the design of any artificial whisker actuators, which will impose certain restrictions on the whisker-object interaction. In this paper we present three robotic whisker platforms, each with different mechanical whisker properties and actuation mechanisms. A feature-based classifier is used to simultaneously discriminate radial distance to contact and contact speed for the first time. We show that whisker-object contact speed predictably affects deflection magnitudes, invariant of whisker material or whisker movement trajectory. We propose that rodent whisker control allows the animal to improve sensing accuracy by regulating contact speed induced touch-to-touch variability.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 1 3%
Unknown 32 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 27%
Student > Master 8 24%
Researcher 5 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 12%
Lecturer 1 3%
Other 4 12%
Unknown 2 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 19 58%
Computer Science 3 9%
Mathematics 2 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 6%
Neuroscience 2 6%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 3 9%
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 05 February 2013.
All research outputs
#17,673,866
of 22,689,790 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neurorobotics
#510
of 844 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#210,083
of 280,664 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neurorobotics
#17
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,689,790 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% 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 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 280,664 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 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.