ArticleBiomimetics (Basel, Switzerland)2023
Biomimetic Random Pulse Computation or Why Do Humans Play Basketball Better than Robots?
Article in Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
In this work, we compare the basketball scoring performance of two imaginary (simulated) mechanical robots in conditions of erroneous information-processing circuits: Machine, whose moves are controlled by a conventional digital computer and Man, controlled by a random pulse computer composed of biologically-inspired circuits which execute basic arithmetic operations. This is the first comparative study of robustness of the digital and the random pulse computing paradigms, with respect to the error rate of the information-processing circuits (perr), for a mechanical robot. In spite of the fact that Man's computer consists of only about 100 logic gates while Machine's requires about 3500 gates, Man achieves a significantly higher scoring probability for perr in the range from 0.01% all the way to 10%, while at lower perr, both converge to the perfect score. Furthermore, Man's hits make up a smooth Gaussian distribution with a vanishing probability of making large misses even at the highest perr, while Machine is prone to spectacular misses already at perr as low as 1 part-per-million. These findings indicate that the biologically inspired computation requires less hardware for the same task, and ensures higher robustness and better behaving operation than digital computation, which are characteristics of importance for the survivability of living beings.
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.