When is Vestibular Information Important During Walking?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Locomotion relies on vision, somatosensory input, and vestibular information. Both vision and somatosensory signals have been shown to be phase dependently modulated during locomotion; however, the regulation of vestibular information has not been investigated in humans. By delivering galvanic vestibular stimulation (GVS) to subjects at either heel contact, mid-stance, or toe-off, it was possible to investigate when vestibular information was important during the gait cycle. The results indicated a difference in the vestibular regulation of upper versus lower body control. Upper body responses to GVS applied at different times did not differ in magnitude for the head (P = 0.2383), trunk (P = 0.1473), or pelvis (P = 0.1732) showing a similar dependence on vestibular information for upper body alignment across the gait cycle. In contrast, foot placement was dependent on the time when stimulation was delivered. Changes in foot placement were significantly larger at heel contact (during the double support phase) than when stimulation was delivered at mid-stance (in the single support phase of the gait cycle; P = 0.0193). These latter results demonstrate, for the first time, evidence of phase-dependent modulation of vestibular information during human walking.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".