ArticleScientific reports2022
Characterizing the performance of human leg external force control.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Neuromuscular fatigue reduces force responsiveness when controlling leg external forces.Physiological reports · 2025Article
- Human force control may trade-off force error with central tendency and recency biases.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2023Article
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
Our legs act as our primary contact with the surrounding environment, generating external forces that enable agile motion. To be agile, the nervous system has to control both the magnitude of the force that the feet apply to the ground and the point of application of this force. The purpose of this study was to characterize the performance of the healthy human neuromechanical system in controlling the force-magnitude and position of an externally applied force. To accomplish this, we built an apparatus that immobilized participants but allowed them to exert variable but controlled external forces with a single leg onto a ground embedded force plate. We provided real-time visual feedback of either the leg force-magnitude or force-position that participants were exerting against the force platform and instructed participants to best match their real-time signal to prescribed target step functions. We tested target step functions of a range of sizes and quantified the responsiveness and accuracy of the control. For the control of force-magnitude and for intermediate step sizes of 0.45 bodyweights, we found a bandwidth of 1.8 ± 0.5 Hz, a steady-state error of 2.6 ± 0.9%, and a steady-state variability of 2.7 ± 0.9%. We found similar control performance in terms of responsiveness and accuracy across step sizes and between force-magnitude and position control. Increases in responsiveness correlated with reductions in other measures of control performance, such as a greater magnitude of overshooting. We modelled the observed control performance and found that a second-order model was a good predictor of external leg force control. We discuss how benchmarking force control performance in young healthy humans aids in understanding differences in agility between humans, between humans and other animals, and between humans and engineered systems.
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.