Loading the Limb During Rhythmic Leg Movements Lengthens the Duration of Both Flexion and Extension in Human Infants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sensory input is critical for adapting motor outputs to meet environmental conditions. A ubiquitous force on all terrestrial animals is gravity. It is possible that when performing rhythmic movements, animals respond to load-related feedback in the same way by prolonging the muscle activity resisting the load. We hypothesized that for rhythmic leg movements, the period (extension or flexion) experiencing the higher load will be longer and vary more strongly with cycle period. Six rhythmic movements were studied in human infants (aged 3-10 mo), each providing different degrees of load-related feedback to the legs during flexion and extension of the limb. Kicking in supine provided similar loads (inertial) during flexion and extension. Stepping on a treadmill, kicking in supine against a foot-plate, and kicking in sitting loaded the legs during extension more than flexion, whereas air-stepping and air-stepping with ankle weights did the opposite. Video, electrogoniometry, surface electromyography, and contact forces were recorded. We showed that load-related feedback could make either the duration of flexion or extension longer. Within the tasks of stepping and kicking against a plate, infants who exerted lower forces showed shorter extensor durations than those who exerted higher forces. Because older babies tend to step with greater force, we wished to rule out the contribution of age. Eight babies (>8 mo old) were studied during stepping, in which we manipulated the amount of weight-bearing. The same effect of load was seen. Hence, the degree of loading directly affects the duration of extension in an incremental way.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".