ReviewJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2017
On neuromechanical approaches for the study of biological and robotic grasp and manipulation.
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.
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
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- Context-dependent mechanical reconfiguration is necessary for multifunctional behavior in an intrinsically confined hydrostat.iScience · 2026Article
- Coordinated hand movement sensation revealed through an implanted magnetic prosthetic kinesthetic interface.Science advances · 2026Article
- A framework for quantifying the mechanics of dexterous grasp.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Incorporating buccal mass planar mechanics and anatomical features improves neuromechanical modeling of Aplysia feeding behavior.Biological cybernetics · 2025Article
- Curriculum is more influential than haptic feedback when learning object manipulation.Science advances · 2025Article
- Exploring motor skill acquisition in bimanual coordination: insights from navigating a novel maze task.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Full Hill-type muscle model of the I1/I3 retractor muscle complex in Aplysia californica.Biological cybernetics · 2024Article
- NSF DARE-Transforming modeling in neurorehabilitation: Four threads for catalyzing progress.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2024Review
- Edge Computing in Nature: Minimal pre-processing of multi-muscle ensembles of spindle signals improves discriminability of limb movements.Frontiers in physiology · 2023Article
- Hierarchical Human-Inspired Control Strategies for Prosthetic Hands.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Playing the piano with a robotic third thumb: assessing constraints of human augmentation.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Dexterous Object Manipulation Requires Context-Dependent Sensorimotor Cortical Interactions in Humans.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2020Article
- Inertial Measurement Unit Based Upper Extremity Motion Characterization for Action Research Arm Test and Activities of Daily Living.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Article
- Fixed muscle synergies and their potential to improve the intuitive control of myoelectric assistive technology for upper extremities.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2019Article
- Editorial: Neuromechanics and Control of Physical Behavior: From Experimental and Computational Formulations to Bio-inspired Technologies.Frontiers in computational neuroscience · 2019Article
- Feasibility Theory Reconciles and Informs Alternative Approaches to Neuromuscular Control.Frontiers in computational neuroscience · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
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
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.