↓ Skip to main content

Computationally efficient modeling of proprioceptive signals in the upper limb for prostheses: a simulation study

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroscience, June 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
75 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
Computationally efficient modeling of proprioceptive signals in the upper limb for prostheses: a simulation study
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroscience, June 2014
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2014.00181
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ian Williams, Timothy G. Constandinou

Abstract

Accurate models of proprioceptive neural patterns could 1 day play an important role in the creation of an intuitive proprioceptive neural prosthesis for amputees. This paper looks at combining efficient implementations of biomechanical and proprioceptor models in order to generate signals that mimic human muscular proprioceptive patterns for future experimental work in prosthesis feedback. A neuro-musculoskeletal model of the upper limb with 7 degrees of freedom and 17 muscles is presented and generates real time estimates of muscle spindle and Golgi Tendon Organ neural firing patterns. Unlike previous neuro-musculoskeletal models, muscle activation and excitation levels are unknowns in this application and an inverse dynamics tool (static optimization) is integrated to estimate these variables. A proprioceptive prosthesis will need to be portable and this is incompatible with the computationally demanding nature of standard biomechanical and proprioceptor modeling. This paper uses and proposes a number of approximations and optimizations to make real time operation on portable hardware feasible. Finally technical obstacles to mimicking natural feedback for an intuitive proprioceptive prosthesis, as well as issues and limitations with existing models, are identified and discussed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
France 1 1%
Germany 1 1%
Unknown 72 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 21%
Student > Master 11 15%
Researcher 11 15%
Student > Bachelor 10 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 7%
Other 6 8%
Unknown 16 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 31 41%
Neuroscience 7 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 4%
Other 9 12%
Unknown 19 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 28 June 2014.
All research outputs
#15,090,466
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#6,314
of 11,538 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#122,602
of 242,574 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#52
of 123 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,538 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.9. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 242,574 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 123 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 57% of its contemporaries.