Researcher profile

David Logan

David Logan contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 13 - Baseline
2works
0followers
2topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

2 published item(s)

preprint2016arXiv

Using Perturbations to Probe the Neural Control of Rhythmic Movements

Small continuous sensory and mechanical perturbations have often been used to identify properties of the closed-loop neural control of posture and other systems that are approximately linear time invariant. Here we extend this approach to study the neural control of rhythmic behaviors such as walking. Our method is based on the theory of linear time periodic systems, with modifications to account for ability of perturbations to reset the phase of a rhythmic behavior. We characterize responses to perturbations in the frequency domain using harmonic transfer functions and then convert to the time domain to obtain phase-dependent impulse response functions (IRFs) that describe the response to a small brief perturbation at any phase of the rhythmic behavior. IRFs describing responses of kinematic variables and muscle activations (measured by EMG) to sensory and mechanical perturbations can be used to infer properties of the plant, the mapping from muscle activation to movement, and of neural feedback, the mapping from movement to muscle activation. We illustrate our method by applying it to simulated data from a model and experimental data of subjects walking on a treadmill perturbed by movement of the visual scene.

preprint2015arXiv

Innovative Science

Sir, We write as senior scientists about a problem vital to the scientific enterprise and prosperity. Nowadays, funding is a lengthy and complex business. First, universities themselves must approve all proposals for submission. Funding agencies then subject those that survive to peer review, a process by which a few researchers, usually acting anonymously, assess a proposal's chances that it will achieve its goals, is the best value for money, is relevant to a national priority and will impact on a socio-economic problem. Only 25% of proposals received by the funding agencies are funded. These protracted processes force researchers to exploit existing knowledge, severely discourage open-ended studies and are hugely time-consuming. They are also new: before 1970, few researchers wrote proposals. Now they are virtually mandatory.