Facilitation of cutaneous inputs during the planning phase of gait initiation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It has been shown that during the planning of a voluntary movement the transmission of cutaneous afferent inputs to the somatosensory cortex is attenuated shortly before the motor output as well as during movement execution. However, it is not known whether the sensory suppression observed during the planning phase (i.e., before any movement execution) is a systemic phenomenon or whether it is dependent on movement context. For example, movements such as step initiation are controlled based on information received from cutaneous receptors in the feet. Because afferent information emerging from these receptors is critical for movement initiation, we hypothesized that suppression of these inputs may not occur during the planning phase prior to gait initiation. To examine this hypothesis we measured the cortical response to somatosensory stimulation during the planning phase of step initiation and during movement execution. Sensitivity to cutaneous stimulation was assessed by measuring the amplitude of the cortical somatosensory-evoked potential (SEP, over the Cz electrode) following electrical stimulations of the plantar sole of one foot. Two stimulations were provided during the planning phase of a step movement and two stimulations during movement execution. It was found that the P50-N80 SEP was facilitated in the early planning phase (-700 ms before motor execution) compared with when participants remained still (control standing task). This mechanism might contribute to an enhanced perception of cutaneous input leading to a more accurate setting of the forces to be exerted onto the ground to shift the body's weight toward the supporting side prior to foot-off.
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.
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 it