ArticlePLoS computational biology2025
Human impedance modulation to improve visuo-haptic perception.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2025. 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.
- Advancing human sensorimotor research through modular robotics: the case of the HRX-1.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2026Review
- Model predictive game control for personalized and targeted interactive assistance.Communications engineering · 2026Article
- Entropy-dependent human motor modulation consistent with morphological computation in a single subject.Frontiers in robotics and AI · 2026Article
- Dynamical stability and mechanical impedance are optimized when manipulating uncertain dynamically complex objects.PLoS computational biology · 2025Article
- Partner-sourced haptic feedback rather than environmental inputs drives coordination improvement in human dyadic collaboration.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Haptic communication and interpersonal dynamics in hand-by-hand guided locomotion in children and adults.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Article
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 activate muscles to shape the mechanical interaction with their environment, but can they harness this control mechanism to best sense the environment? We investigated how participants adapt their muscle activation to visual and haptic information when tracking a randomly moving target with a robotic interface. The results exhibit a differentiated effect of these sensory modalities, where participants' muscle coactivation increases with the haptic noise and decreases with the visual noise, in apparent contradiction to previous results. These results can be explained when considering muscle spring-like mechanics, where stiffness increases with coactivation to regulate motion guidance. Increasing coactivation to more closely follow the motion plan favors accurate visual over haptic information, while decreasing it filters visual noise and relies more on accurate haptic information. We formulated this active sensing mechanism as the optimization of visuo-haptic information and effort. This optimal information and effort (OIE) model can explain the adaptation of muscle activity to unimodal and multimodal sensory information when interacting with fixed or dynamic environments, or with another human, and can be used to optimize human-robot interaction.
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.