Modulation of phase durations, phase variations, and temporal coordination of the four limbs during quadrupedal split-belt locomotion in intact adult cats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stepping along curvilinear paths produces speed differences between the inner and outer limb(s). This can be reproduced experimentally by independently controlling left and right speeds with split-belt locomotion. Here we provide additional details on the pattern of the four limbs during quadrupedal split-belt locomotion in intact cats. Six cats performed tied-belt locomotion (same speed bilaterally) and split-belt locomotion where one side (constant side) stepped at constant treadmill speed while the other side (varying side) stepped at several speeds. Cycle, stance, and swing durations changed in parallel in homolateral limbs with shorter and longer stance and swing durations on the fast side, respectively, compared with the slow side. Phase variations were quantified in all four limbs by measuring the slopes of the regressions between stance and cycle durations (rSTA) and between swing and cycle durations (rSW). For a given limb, rSTA and rSW were not significantly different from one another on the constant side whereas on the varying side rSTA increased relative to tied-belt locomotion while rSW became more negative. Phase variations were similar for homolateral limbs. Increasing left-right speed differences produced a large increase in homolateral double support on the slow side, while triple-support periods decreased. Increasing left-right speed differences altered homologous coupling, homolateral coupling on the fast side, and coupling between the fast hindlimb and slow forelimb. Results indicate that homolateral limbs share similar control strategies, only certain features of the interlimb pattern adjust, and spinal locomotor networks of the left and right sides are organized symmetrically.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".