ReviewFrontiers in robotics and AI2018
Active Viscoelasticity of Sarcomeres.
Review in Frontiers in robotics and AI, 2018. 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.
- Metareview: a survey of active matter reviews.The European physical journal. E, Soft matter · 2025Review
- Center of mass states render multijoint torques throughout standing balance recovery.Journal of neurophysiology · 2025Article
- Differential effects of myosin activators on myocardial contractile function in nonfailing and failing human hearts.American journal of physiology. Heart and circulatory physiology · 2025Article
- Asynchronous magnetic resonance elastography: Shear wave speed reconstruction using noise correlation of incoherent waves.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2023Article
- Finger stability in precision grips.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2022Article
- Tutorial Review of Bio-Inspired Approaches to Robotic Manipulation for Space Debris Salvage.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The perturbation response of muscle is important for the versatile, stable and agile control capabilities of animals. Muscle resists being stretched by developing forces in the passive tissues and in the active crossbridges. This review focuses on the active perturbation response of the sarcomere. The active response exhibits typical stress relaxation, and thus approximated by a Maxwell material that has a spring and dashpot arranged in series. The ratio of damping to stiffness in this approximation defines the relaxation timescale for dissipating stresses that are developed in the crossbridges due to external perturbations. Current understanding of sarcomeres suggests that stiffness varies nearly linearly with neural excitation, but not much is known about damping. But if both stiffness and damping have the same functional (linear or not) dependence on neural excitation, then the stress relaxation timescale cannot be varied depending on the demands of the task. This implies an unavoidable and biologically unrealistic trade-off between how freely the crossbridges can yield and dissipate stresses when stretched (injury avoidance in agile motions) vs. how long they can maintain perturbation-induced stresses and behave like a solid material (stiffness maintenance for stability). We hypothesize that muscle circumvents this trade-off by varying damping in a nonlinear manner with neural excitation, unlike stiffness that varies linearly. Testing this hypothesis requires new experimental and mathematical characterization of muscle mechanics, and also identifies new design goals for robotic actuators.
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.