ArticleIEEE robotics and automation letters2022
Dynamic Primitives Limit Human Force Regulation during Motion.
Article in IEEE robotics and automation letters, 2022. 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.
- Force-velocity coupling limits human adaptation in physical human-robot interaction.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Biological kinematics: a detailed review of the velocity-curvature power law calculation.Experimental brain research · 2025Review
- Control limitations in the null-space of the wrist muscle system.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Dynamic primitives in constrained action: systematic changes in the zero-force trajectory.Journal of neurophysiology · 2024Article
- Article
- Role of path information in visual perception of joint stiffness.PLoS computational biology · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Humans excel at physical interaction despite long feedback delays and low-bandwidth actuators. Yet little is known about how humans manage physical interaction. A quantitative understanding of how they do is critical for designing machines that can safely and effectively interact with humans, e.g. amputation prostheses, assistive exoskeletons, therapeutic rehabilitation robots, and physical human-robot collaboration. To facilitate applications, this understanding should be in the form of a simple mathematical model that not only describes humans' capabilities but also their limitations. In robotics, hybrid control allows simultaneous, independent control of both motion and force and it is often assumed that humans can modulate force independent of motion as well. This paper experimentally tested that assumption. Participants were asked to apply a constant 5N force on a robot manipulandum that moved along an elliptical path. After initial improvement, force errors quickly plateaued, despite practice and visual feedback. Within-trial analyses revealed that force errors varied with position on the ellipse, rejecting the hypothesis that humans have independent control of force and motion. The findings are consistent with a feed-forward motion command composed of two primitive oscillations acting through mechanical impedance to evoke force.
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.