生物运动学:速度-曲率幂律计算的详细回顾。

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q4 NEUROSCIENCES
Dagmar Scott Fraser, Massimiliano Di Luca, Jennifer Louise Cook
{"title":"生物运动学:速度-曲率幂律计算的详细回顾。","authors":"Dagmar Scott Fraser, Massimiliano Di Luca, Jennifer Louise Cook","doi":"10.1007/s00221-025-07065-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The 'one-third power law', relating velocity to curvature is among the most established kinematic invariances in bodily movements. Despite being heralded amongst the 'kinematic laws of nature' (Flash 2021, p. 4), there is no consensus on its origin, common reporting practice, or vetted analytical protocol. Many legacy elements of analytical protocols in the literature are suboptimal, such as noise amplification from repeated differentiation, biases arising from filtering, log transformation distortion, and injudicious linear regression, all of which undermine power law calculations. Recent findings of power law divergences in clinical populations have highlighted the need for improved protocols. This article reviews prior power law calculation protocols, identifies suboptimal practices, before proposing candidate solutions grounded in the kinematics literature. We evaluate these candidates via two simple criteria: firstly, they must avoid spurious confirmation of the law, secondly, they must confirm the law when it is present. Ultimately, we synthesise candidate solutions into a vetted, modular protocol which we make freely available to the scientific community. The protocol's modularity accommodates future analytical advances and permits re-use in broader kinematic science applications. We propose that adoption of this protocol will eliminate artificial confirmation of the law and facilitate more sensitive quantification of recently noted power law divergences, which are associated with neurochemical disturbances arising from dopaminergic drugs, and in conditions such as Parkinson's and autism.</p>","PeriodicalId":12268,"journal":{"name":"Experimental Brain Research","volume":"243 5","pages":"107"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11968483/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Biological kinematics: a detailed review of the velocity-curvature power law calculation.\",\"authors\":\"Dagmar Scott Fraser, Massimiliano Di Luca, Jennifer Louise Cook\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00221-025-07065-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The 'one-third power law', relating velocity to curvature is among the most established kinematic invariances in bodily movements. Despite being heralded amongst the 'kinematic laws of nature' (Flash 2021, p. 4), there is no consensus on its origin, common reporting practice, or vetted analytical protocol. Many legacy elements of analytical protocols in the literature are suboptimal, such as noise amplification from repeated differentiation, biases arising from filtering, log transformation distortion, and injudicious linear regression, all of which undermine power law calculations. Recent findings of power law divergences in clinical populations have highlighted the need for improved protocols. This article reviews prior power law calculation protocols, identifies suboptimal practices, before proposing candidate solutions grounded in the kinematics literature. We evaluate these candidates via two simple criteria: firstly, they must avoid spurious confirmation of the law, secondly, they must confirm the law when it is present. Ultimately, we synthesise candidate solutions into a vetted, modular protocol which we make freely available to the scientific community. The protocol's modularity accommodates future analytical advances and permits re-use in broader kinematic science applications. We propose that adoption of this protocol will eliminate artificial confirmation of the law and facilitate more sensitive quantification of recently noted power law divergences, which are associated with neurochemical disturbances arising from dopaminergic drugs, and in conditions such as Parkinson's and autism.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12268,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Experimental Brain Research\",\"volume\":\"243 5\",\"pages\":\"107\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11968483/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Experimental Brain Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-025-07065-0\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"NEUROSCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Experimental Brain Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-025-07065-0","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

关于速度和曲率的“三分之一幂定律”是身体运动中最确定的运动学不变性之一。尽管被称为“自然运动学定律”(Flash 2021,第4页),但在其起源,共同报告实践或审查分析协议方面尚无共识。文献中分析协议的许多遗留元素都是次优的,例如重复微分引起的噪声放大,滤波引起的偏差,对数变换失真和不明智的线性回归,所有这些都会破坏幂律计算。最近在临床人群中幂律差异的发现强调了改进方案的必要性。本文回顾了先前的幂律计算协议,确定了次优实践,然后提出了基于运动学文献的候选解决方案。我们通过两个简单的标准来评估这些候选人:首先,他们必须避免对法律的虚假确认,其次,他们必须在法律存在时确认法律。最终,我们将候选解决方案合成为经过审查的模块化协议,并将其免费提供给科学界。该协议的模块化适应了未来的分析进步,并允许在更广泛的运动学科学应用中重用。我们建议采用该协议将消除对该定律的人为确认,并促进对最近注意到的幂律差异进行更敏感的量化,幂律差异与多巴胺能药物引起的神经化学紊乱有关,并与帕金森病和自闭症等疾病有关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Biological kinematics: a detailed review of the velocity-curvature power law calculation.

The 'one-third power law', relating velocity to curvature is among the most established kinematic invariances in bodily movements. Despite being heralded amongst the 'kinematic laws of nature' (Flash 2021, p. 4), there is no consensus on its origin, common reporting practice, or vetted analytical protocol. Many legacy elements of analytical protocols in the literature are suboptimal, such as noise amplification from repeated differentiation, biases arising from filtering, log transformation distortion, and injudicious linear regression, all of which undermine power law calculations. Recent findings of power law divergences in clinical populations have highlighted the need for improved protocols. This article reviews prior power law calculation protocols, identifies suboptimal practices, before proposing candidate solutions grounded in the kinematics literature. We evaluate these candidates via two simple criteria: firstly, they must avoid spurious confirmation of the law, secondly, they must confirm the law when it is present. Ultimately, we synthesise candidate solutions into a vetted, modular protocol which we make freely available to the scientific community. The protocol's modularity accommodates future analytical advances and permits re-use in broader kinematic science applications. We propose that adoption of this protocol will eliminate artificial confirmation of the law and facilitate more sensitive quantification of recently noted power law divergences, which are associated with neurochemical disturbances arising from dopaminergic drugs, and in conditions such as Parkinson's and autism.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
5.00%
发文量
228
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Founded in 1966, Experimental Brain Research publishes original contributions on many aspects of experimental research of the central and peripheral nervous system. The focus is on molecular, physiology, behavior, neurochemistry, developmental, cellular and molecular neurobiology, and experimental pathology relevant to general problems of cerebral function. The journal publishes original papers, reviews, and mini-reviews.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信