↓ Skip to main content

Feasibility Theory Reconciles and Informs Alternative Approaches to Neuromuscular Control

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users

Readers on

mendeley
62 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
Feasibility Theory Reconciles and Informs Alternative Approaches to Neuromuscular Control
Published in
Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, September 2018
DOI 10.3389/fncom.2018.00062
Pubmed ID
Authors

Brian A. Cohn, May Szedlák, Bernd Gärtner, Francisco J. Valero-Cuevas

Abstract

We present Feasibility Theory, a conceptual and computational framework to unify today's theories of neuromuscular control. We begin by describing how the musculoskeletal anatomy of the limb, the need to control individual tendons, and the physics of a motor task uniquely specify the family of all valid muscle activations that accomplish it (its 'feasible activation space'). For our example of producing static force with a finger driven by seven muscles, computational geometry characterizes-in a complete way-the structure of feasible activation spaces as 3-dimensional polytopes embedded in 7-D. The feasible activation space for a given task is the landscape where all neuromuscular learning, control, and performance must occur. This approach unifies current theories of neuromuscular control because the structure of feasible activation spaces can be separately approximated as either low-dimensional basis functions (synergies), high-dimensional joint probability distributions (Bayesian priors), or fitness landscapes (to optimize cost functions).

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users 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 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 62 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 29%
Student > Bachelor 7 11%
Student > Master 7 11%
Researcher 7 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 8%
Other 6 10%
Unknown 12 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 18 29%
Sports and Recreations 6 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 8%
Neuroscience 5 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 5%
Other 8 13%
Unknown 17 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 27 September 2018.
All research outputs
#6,059,591
of 23,096,849 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
#282
of 1,358 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#106,360
of 337,506 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
#2
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,096,849 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,358 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 337,506 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 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.