ArticleJournal of applied biomechanics2013
Comparison of interfinger connection matrix computation techniques.
Article in Journal of applied biomechanics, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Finger enslaving in the dominant and non-dominant hand.Human movement science · 2014Article
- Optimization and variability of motor behavior in multifinger tasks: what variables does the brain use?Journal of motor behavior · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
A hypothesis was proposed that the central nervous system controls force production by the fingers through hypothetical neural commands. The neural commands are scaled between values of 0 to 1, indicating no intentional force production or maximal voluntary contraction (MVC) force production, respectively. A matrix of interfinger connections transforms neural commands into finger forces. Two methods have been proposed to compute the interfinger connection matrix. The first method uses only single finger MVC trials and multiplies the interfinger connection matrix by a gain factor. The second method uses a neural network model based on experimental data. The performance of the two methods was compared on the MVC data and on a data set of submaximal forces, collected over a range of total forces and moments of force. The methods were compared in terms of (1) ability to predict finger forces, (2) accuracy of neural command reconstruction, and (3) preserved planarity of force data for submaximal force production task. Both methods did a reasonable job of predicting the total force in multifinger MVC trials; however, the neural network model performed better in regards to all other criteria. Overall, the results indicate that for modeling multifinger interaction the neural network method is preferable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.