Unique characteristics of motor adaptation during walking in young children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Children show precocious ability in the learning of languages; is this the case with motor learning? We used split-belt walking to probe motor adaptation (a form of motor learning) in children. Data from 27 children (ages 8-36 mo) were compared with those from 10 adults. Children walked with the treadmill belts at the same speed (tied belt), followed by walking with the belts moving at different speeds (split belt) for 8-10 min, followed again by tied-belt walking (postsplit). Initial asymmetries in temporal coordination (i.e., double support time) induced by split-belt walking were slowly reduced, with most children showing an aftereffect (i.e., asymmetry in the opposite direction to the initial) in the early postsplit period, indicative of learning. In contrast, asymmetries in spatial coordination (i.e., center of oscillation) persisted during split-belt walking and no aftereffect was seen. Step length, a measure of both spatial and temporal coordination, showed intermediate effects. The time course of learning in double support and step length was slower in children than in adults. Moreover, there was a significant negative correlation between the size of the initial asymmetry during early split-belt walking (called error) and the aftereffect for step length. Hence, children may have more difficulty learning when the errors are large. The findings further suggest that the mechanisms controlling temporal and spatial adaptation are different and mature at different times.
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".