Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29017508›Full record

ReviewJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2017

On neuromechanical approaches for the study of biological and robotic grasp and manipulation.

Francisco J Valero-Cuevas, Marco Santello

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. A framework for quantifying the mechanics of dexterous grasp.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Francisco J Valero-CuevasBiomedical Engineering Department, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA. valero@usc.edu.
Marco SantelloSchool of Biological and Health Systems Engineering Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA.

Funding

Structure &function of the fingers tendinous apparatusR01AR052345 · NIAMS · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA · PI VALERO-CUEVAS, FRANCISCO J · 2005 to 2017
$3.7M
Control of finger movement and force for precision pinchR01AR050520 · NIAMS · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA · PI VALERO-CUEVAS, FRANCISCO J · 2004 to 2014
$2.9M
Soft Synergy-Based Artificial Hand for Prosthetic ApplicationsR21HD081938 · NICHD · ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY-TEMPE CAMPUS · PI SANTELLO, MARCO · 2014 to 2015
$393k
NIAMS NIH HHS R01 AR050520NIAMS NIH HHS R01 AR052345NICHD NIH HHS R21 HD081938
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Biological and robotic grasp and manipulation are undeniably similar at the level of mechanical task performance. However, their underlying fundamental biological vs. engineering mechanisms are, by definition, dramatically different and can even be antithetical. Even our approach to each is diametrically opposite: inductive science for the study of biological systems vs. engineering synthesis for the design and construction of robotic systems. The past 20 years have seen several conceptual advances in both fields and the quest to unify them. Chief among them is the reluctant recognition that their underlying fundamental mechanisms may actually share limited common ground, while exhibiting many fundamental differences. This recognition is particularly liberating because it allows us to resolve and move beyond multiple paradoxes and contradictions that arose from the initial reasonable assumption of a large common ground. Here, we begin by introducing the perspective of neuromechanics, which emphasizes that real-world behavior emerges from the intimate interactions among the physical structure of the system, the mechanical requirements of a task, the feasible neural control actions to produce it, and the ability of the neuromuscular system to adapt through interactions with the environment. This allows us to articulate a succinct overview of a few salient conceptual paradoxes and contradictions regarding under-determined vs. over-determined mechanics, under- vs. over-actuated control, prescribed vs. emergent function, learning vs. implementation vs. adaptation, prescriptive vs. descriptive synergies, and optimal vs. habitual performance. We conclude by presenting open questions and suggesting directions for future research. We hope this frank and open-minded assessment of the state-of-the-art will encourage and guide these communities to continue to interact and make progress in these important areas at the interface of neuromechanics, neuroscience, rehabilitation and robotics.

Indexed as

Hand StrengthRoboticsBiomechanical PhenomenaHumansHandNeuromuscular controlProsthetics

Identifiers

PMID29017508
PMCPMC5635506

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.