ArticlePLoS computational biology2021
Force variability is mostly not motor noise: Theoretical implications for motor control.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 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
22 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.
- Neuromuscular adaptations to caffeine supplementation in low-load resistance training with blood flow restriction.Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition · 2025Trial
- Tapping force variability influences temporal precision in paced finger tapping.Psychological research · 2026Article
- Why the Same Dose of Botulinum Toxin A Is Less Predictable in Small Muscles: A Discrete Threshold Model.Toxins · 2026Article
- Reliability of force production based on the sense of effort at different force levels.Experimental brain research · 2026Article
- Kinetic characteristics of Wushu Changbing PiJi: decoupling sex-specific adaptive strategies via functional principal component analysis.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2026Article
- Harnessing Nonlinear Mechanics to Transform Medical Diagnostics.Applied mechanics reviews · 2025Article
- Foot placement control underlies stable locomotion across species.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- Matching dynamically varying forces with multi-motor-unit muscle models: a simulation study.Royal Society open science · 2025Article
- Control of precision grip in children with heavy prenatal alcohol exposure.Alcohol, clinical & experimental research · 2025Article
- Co-contraction embodies uncertainty: An optimal feedforward strategy for robust motor control.PLoS computational biology · 2024Article
- Modeling kinematic variability reveals displacement and velocity based dual control of saccadic eye movements.Experimental brain research · 2024Article
- High-dimensional cortical signals reveal rich bimodal and working memory-like representations among S1 neuron populations.Communications biology · 2024Article
- A computational study of how an α- to γ-motoneurone collateral can mitigate velocity-dependent stretch reflexes during voluntary movement.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024Article
- An alpha- to gamma-motoneurone collateral can mitigate velocity-dependent stretch reflexes during voluntary movement: A computational study.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
- Control of motor output during steady submaximal contractions is modulated by contraction history.Experimental brain research · 2024Article
- A dynamic calcium-force relationship model for sag behavior in fast skeletal muscle.PLoS computational biology · 2023Article
- Numerical instability of Hill-type muscle models.Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2023Review
- Dendritic Spines: Synaptogenesis and Synaptic Pruning for the Developmental Organization of Brain Circuits.Advances in neurobiology · 2023Article
- Neuromuscular control: from a biomechanist's perspective.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2023Review
- Movement variability can be modulated in speech production.Journal of neurophysiology · 2022Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Variability in muscle force is a hallmark of healthy and pathological human behavior. Predominant theories of sensorimotor control assume 'motor noise' leads to force variability and its 'signal dependence' (variability in muscle force whose amplitude increases with intensity of neural drive). Here, we demonstrate that the two proposed mechanisms for motor noise (i.e. the stochastic nature of motor unit discharge and unfused tetanic contraction) cannot account for the majority of force variability nor for its signal dependence. We do so by considering three previously underappreciated but physiologically important features of a population of motor units: 1) fusion of motor unit twitches, 2) coupling among motoneuron discharge rate, cross-bridge dynamics, and muscle mechanics, and 3) a series-elastic element to account for the aponeurosis and tendon. These results argue strongly against the idea that force variability and the resulting kinematic variability are generated primarily by 'motor noise.' Rather, they underscore the importance of variability arising from properties of control strategies embodied through distributed sensorimotor systems. As such, our study provides a critical path toward developing theories and models of sensorimotor control that provide a physiologically valid and clinically useful understanding of healthy and pathologic force variability.
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.