ArticleBiological cybernetics2020
Establishing metrics and control laws for the learning process: ball and beam balancing.
Article in Biological cybernetics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Simplified internal models in human control of complex objects.PLoS computational biology · 2024Article
- Human performance in virtual stabilization of a fractional-order system with reaction delay.Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2024Article
- Motor control beyond reach-how humans hit a target with a whip.Royal Society open science · 2022Article
- Response to perturbation during quiet standing resembles delayed state feedback optimized for performance and robustness.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Rolling balance board of adjustable geometry as a tool to assess balancing skill and to estimate reaction time delay.Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2021Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Understanding how dexterity improves with practice is a fundamental challenge of motor control and neurorehabilitation. Here we investigate a ball and beam implementation of a dexterity puzzle in which subjects stabilize a ball at the mid-point of a beam by manipulating the angular position of the beam. Stabilizability analysis of different biomechanical models for the ball and beam task with time-delayed proportional-derivative feedback identified the angular position of the beam as the manipulated variable. Consequently, we monitored the changes in the dynamics with learning by measuring changes in the control parameters. Two types of stable motion are possible: node type (nonoscillatory) and spiral type (oscillatory). Both types of motion are observed experimentally and correspond to well-defined regions in the parameter space of the control gains. With practice the control gains for each subject move close to or on the portion of the boundary which separates the node-type and spiral-type solutions and which is associated with the rightmost characteristic exponent of smallest real part. These observations suggest that with learning the control gains for ball and beam balancing change in such a way that minimizes overshoot and the settling time. This study provides an example of how mathematical analysis together with careful experimental observations can shed light onto the early stages of skill acquisition. Since the difficulty of this task depends on the length of the beam, ball and beam balancing tasks may be useful for the rehabilitation of children with dyspraxia and those recovering from a stroke.
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.