↓ Skip to main content

Predictive Simulation of Reaching Moving Targets Using Nonlinear Model Predictive Control

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
69 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
Predictive Simulation of Reaching Moving Targets Using Nonlinear Model Predictive Control
Published in
Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, January 2017
DOI 10.3389/fncom.2016.00143
Pubmed ID
Authors

Naser Mehrabi, Reza Sharif Razavian, Borna Ghannadi, John McPhee

Abstract

This article investigates the application of optimal feedback control to trajectory planning in voluntary human arm movements. A nonlinear model predictive controller (NMPC) with a finite prediction horizon was used as the optimal feedback controller to predict the hand trajectory planning and execution of planar reaching tasks. The NMPC is completely predictive, and motion tracking or electromyography data are not required to obtain the limb trajectories. To present this concept, a two degree of freedom musculoskeletal planar arm model actuated by three pairs of antagonist muscles was used to simulate the human arm dynamics. This study is based on the assumption that the nervous system minimizes the muscular effort during goal-directed movements. The effects of prediction horizon length on the trajectory, velocity profile, and muscle activities of a reaching task are presented. The NMPC predictions of the hand trajectory to reach fixed and moving targets are in good agreement with the trajectories found by dynamic optimization and those from experiments. However, the hand velocity and muscle activations predicted by NMPC did not agree as well with experiments or with those found from dynamic optimization.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 68 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 29%
Student > Master 12 17%
Researcher 9 13%
Professor 4 6%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 6%
Other 10 14%
Unknown 10 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 34 49%
Neuroscience 4 6%
Computer Science 4 6%
Unspecified 2 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Other 7 10%
Unknown 16 23%
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 13 June 2017.
All research outputs
#13,662,605
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
#537
of 1,379 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#210,642
of 424,582 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
#11
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,379 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its peers.
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 424,582 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.