↓ Skip to main content

Elucidating Sensorimotor Control Principles with Myoelectric Musculoskeletal Models

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 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
Elucidating Sensorimotor Control Principles with Myoelectric Musculoskeletal Models
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, November 2017
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2017.00531
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sarah E. Goodman, Christopher J. Hasson

Abstract

There is an old saying that you must walk a mile in someone's shoes to truly understand them. This mini-review will synthesize and discuss recent research that attempts to make humans "walk a mile" in an artificial musculoskeletal system to gain insight into the principles governing human movement control. In this approach, electromyography (EMG) is used to sample human motor commands; these commands serve as inputs to mathematical models of muscular dynamics, which in turn act on a model of skeletal dynamics to produce a simulated motor action in real-time (i.e., the model's state is updated fast enough produce smooth motion without noticeable transitions; Manal et al., 2002). In this mini-review, these are termed myoelectric musculoskeletal models (MMMs). After a brief overview of typical MMM design and operation principles, the review will highlight how MMMs have been used for understanding human sensorimotor control and learning by evoking apparent alterations in a user's biomechanics, neural control, and sensory feedback experiences.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 36 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 19%
Researcher 4 11%
Student > Bachelor 4 11%
Other 2 6%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 9 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 13 36%
Sports and Recreations 5 14%
Neuroscience 3 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 6%
Arts and Humanities 2 6%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 9 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 15 January 2018.
All research outputs
#13,310,866
of 23,567,572 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#3,656
of 7,319 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#155,758
of 329,500 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#91
of 159 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,567,572 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,319 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 329,500 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 159 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.