↓ Skip to main content

A model-based approach to predict muscle synergies using optimization: application to feedback control

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
114 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
A model-based approach to predict muscle synergies using optimization: application to feedback control
Published in
Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, October 2015
DOI 10.3389/fncom.2015.00121
Pubmed ID
Authors

Reza Sharif Razavian, Naser Mehrabi, John McPhee

Abstract

This paper presents a new model-based method to define muscle synergies. Unlike the conventional factorization approach, which extracts synergies from electromyographic data, the proposed method employs a biomechanical model and formally defines the synergies as the solution of an optimal control problem. As a result, the number of required synergies is directly related to the dimensions of the operational space. The estimated synergies are posture-dependent, which correlate well with the results of standard factorization methods. Two examples are used to showcase this method: a two-dimensional forearm model, and a three-dimensional driver arm model. It has been shown here that the synergies need to be task-specific (i.e., they are defined for the specific operational spaces: the elbow angle and the steering wheel angle in the two systems). This functional definition of synergies results in a low-dimensional control space, in which every force in the operational space is accurately created by a unique combination of synergies. As such, there is no need for extra criteria (e.g., minimizing effort) in the process of motion control. This approach is motivated by the need for fast and bio-plausible feedback control of musculoskeletal systems, and can have important implications in engineering, motor control, and biomechanics.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 114 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 111 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 32 28%
Student > Master 21 18%
Researcher 17 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 9%
Other 7 6%
Other 10 9%
Unknown 17 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 53 46%
Neuroscience 15 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 7%
Sports and Recreations 4 4%
Computer Science 3 3%
Other 8 7%
Unknown 23 20%
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 06 October 2015.
All research outputs
#20,293,238
of 22,829,683 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
#1,161
of 1,343 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#233,234
of 277,991 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
#31
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,829,683 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,343 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 277,991 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.