Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Kinematic Equations: Problem Solving01:15

Kinematic Equations: Problem Solving

24.2K
When analyzing one-dimensional motion with constant acceleration, the problem-solving strategy involves identifying the known quantities and choosing the appropriate kinematic equations to solve for the unknowns. Either one or two kinematic equations are needed to solve for the unknowns, depending on the known and unknown quantities. Generally, the number of equations required is the same as the number of unknown quantities in the given example. Two-body pursuit problems always require two...
24.2K
Kinematic Equations - III01:18

Kinematic Equations - III

9.9K
The first two kinematic equations have time as a variable, but the third kinematic equation is independent of time. This equation expresses final velocity as a function of the acceleration and distance over which it acts. The fourth kinematic equation does not have an acceleration term and provides the final position of the object at time t in terms of the initial and final velocities. This equation is useful when the value of the constant acceleration is unknown.
Using the kinematic equations,...
9.9K
Kinematic Equations - II01:17

Kinematic Equations - II

12.0K
The second kinematic equation expresses the final position of an object in terms of its initial position, the distance traveled with the initial constant velocity, and the distance traveled due to a change in velocity. Similar to the first kinematic equation, this equation is also only valid when the acceleration is constant throughout the motion of an object.
Suppose a car merges into freeway traffic on a 200 m long ramp. If its initial velocity is 10 m/s and it accelerates at 2 m/s2, then the...
12.0K
Kinematic Equations - I01:26

Kinematic Equations - I

13.2K
When an object moves with constant acceleration, the velocity of the object changes at a constant rate throughout the motion. The kinematic equations of motions are derived for such cases where the acceleration of the object is constant. The first kinematic equation gives an insight into the relationship between velocity, acceleration, and time. We can see, for example:
13.2K
Relative Motion Analysis using Rotating Axes-Problem Solving01:29

Relative Motion Analysis using Rotating Axes-Problem Solving

834
Consider a crane whose telescopic boom rotates with an angular velocity of 0.04 rad/s and angular acceleration of 0.02 rad/s2. Along with the rotation, the boom also extends linearly with a uniform speed of 5 m/s. The extension of the boom is measured at point D, which is measured with respect to the fixed point C on the other end of the boom. For the given instant, the distance between points C and D is 60 meters.
Here, in order to determine the magnitude of velocity and acceleration for point...
834
Kinematic Equations for Rotation01:30

Kinematic Equations for Rotation

1.1K
In mechanics, when one observes a rigid body in rotational motion with constant angular acceleration, it is possible to establish equations for its rotational kinematics. This process resembles how linear kinematics are dealt with in simpler motion studies.
For instance, imagine a point A on a rigid body engaged in circular motion. The translational velocity of this particular point can be calculated by taking the time derivatives of the displacement equation, which essentially measures the...
1.1K

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same authorSame journal

Arm movement control in gravity.

Journal of neurophysiology·2026
Same author

A low-cost markerless motion capture system to automate functional gait assessment: Feasibility study.

PloS one·2026
Same author

What is the influence of knee joint movement on the maximal average mechanical power output of human quadriceps femoris muscle?

Journal of applied physiology (Bethesda, Md. : 1985)·2026
Same author

A context-free model of savings in motor learning.

eLife·2026
Same author

Simultaneous stabilizing feedback control of linear and angular momentum in human walking.

Journal of biomechanics·2026
Same author

Sensory expectations shape neural population dynamics in motor circuits.

Nature·2025

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Apr 28, 2026

Operation of the Collaborative Composite Manufacturing CCM System
10:09

Operation of the Collaborative Composite Manufacturing CCM System

Published on: October 1, 2019

6.2K

The cost of moving optimally: kinematic path selection.

Dinant A Kistemaker1, Jeremy D Wong2, Paul L Gribble3

  • 1The Brain and Mind Institute, Department of Psychology, The University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada; VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; and dinant.kistemaker@gmail.com.

Journal of Neurophysiology
|June 20, 2014
PubMed
Summary

The brain plans movement kinematics first, then generates muscle activation. This study shows kinematic planning, not dynamic costs, drives arm movement trajectories.

Keywords:
arm kinematicscontrol effortforce fieldjerkmotor controlmotor learningmuscle activation patternsmuscle energytorque change

More Related Videos

Sit-to-stand-and-walk from 120% Knee Height: A Novel Approach to Assess Dynamic Postural Control Independent of Lead-limb
08:24

Sit-to-stand-and-walk from 120% Knee Height: A Novel Approach to Assess Dynamic Postural Control Independent of Lead-limb

Published on: August 30, 2016

10.4K
In Vivo Quantification of Hip Arthrokinematics during Dynamic Weight-bearing Activities using Dual Fluoroscopy
07:43

In Vivo Quantification of Hip Arthrokinematics during Dynamic Weight-bearing Activities using Dual Fluoroscopy

Published on: July 2, 2021

2.8K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Apr 28, 2026

Operation of the Collaborative Composite Manufacturing CCM System
10:09

Operation of the Collaborative Composite Manufacturing CCM System

Published on: October 1, 2019

6.2K
Sit-to-stand-and-walk from 120% Knee Height: A Novel Approach to Assess Dynamic Postural Control Independent of Lead-limb
08:24

Sit-to-stand-and-walk from 120% Knee Height: A Novel Approach to Assess Dynamic Postural Control Independent of Lead-limb

Published on: August 30, 2016

10.4K
In Vivo Quantification of Hip Arthrokinematics during Dynamic Weight-bearing Activities using Dual Fluoroscopy
07:43

In Vivo Quantification of Hip Arthrokinematics during Dynamic Weight-bearing Activities using Dual Fluoroscopy

Published on: July 2, 2021

2.8K

Area of Science:

  • Neuroscience
  • Motor Control
  • Biomechanics

Background:

  • The brain's strategy for planning movements, whether explicit kinematic planning or implicit dynamic optimization, remains debated.
  • Various cost functions (e.g., control effort, torque change, jerk) can predict movement characteristics but lack empirical differentiation.
  • Understanding the underlying principles of motor planning is crucial for neuroscience and rehabilitation.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To differentiate between explicit kinematic planning and implicit dynamic optimization in motor control.
  • To investigate the role of different cost functions (kinematic vs. dynamic) in shaping movement trajectories.
  • To provide behavioral evidence for the brain's strategy in solving kinematic and mechanical redundancy.

Main Methods:

  • Subjects performed goal-directed arm movements in a force field combined with visual perturbations.
  • A physiologically realistic arm model was used to predict movements under different cost functions.
  • Experimental conditions manipulated kinematic and dynamic costs independently to disentangle their effects.

Main Results:

  • Experimental results were inconsistent with control or dynamic cost functions.
  • Movement patterns were accurately predicted by a kinematic cost function incorporating visual and somatosensory perceived jerk.
  • The findings suggest a separation between kinematic planning and muscle activation generation.

Conclusions:

  • The brain plans movement kinematics explicitly in a separate step before generating muscle activation patterns.
  • Kinematic cost, specifically perceived jerk, is the primary determinant of planned movement trajectories.
  • This study provides strong behavioral evidence for a two-step process in motor control: kinematic planning followed by muscle control.