ArticleJournal of neurophysiology2024
Dynamic primitives in constrained action: systematic changes in the zero-force trajectory.
Article in Journal of neurophysiology, 2024. 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.
- Force-velocity coupling limits human adaptation in physical human-robot interaction.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Brownian processes in human motor control support descending neural velocity commands.Scientific reports · 2024Article
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
Abstract
Humans substantially outperform robotic systems in tasks that require physical interaction, despite seemingly inferior muscle bandwidth and slow neural information transmission. The control strategies that enable this performance remain poorly understood. To bridge that gap, this study examined kinematically constrained motion as an intermediate step between the widely studied unconstrained motions and sparsely studied physical interactions. Subjects turned a horizontal planar crank in two directions (clockwise and counterclockwise) at three constant target speeds (fast, medium, and very slow) as instructed via visual display. With the hand constrained to move in a circle, nonzero forces against the constraint were measured. This experiment exposed two observations that could not result from mechanics alone but may be attributed to neural control composed of dynamic primitives. A plausible mathematical model of interactive dynamics (mechanical impedance) was assumed and used to "subtract" peripheral neuromechanics. This method revealed a summary of the underlying neural control in terms of motion, a zero-force trajectory. The estimated zero-force trajectories were approximately elliptical and their orientation differed significantly with turning direction; that is consistent with control using oscillations to generate an elliptical zero-force trajectory. However, for periods longer than 2-5 s, motion can no longer be perceived or executed as periodic. Instead, it decomposes into a sequence of submovements, manifesting as increased variability. These quantifiable performance limitations support the hypothesis that humans simplify this constrained-motion task by exploiting at least three primitive dynamic actions: oscillations, submovements, and mechanical impedance.
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.