How Do Infants Adapt to Loading of the Limb During the Swing Phase of Stepping?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous results from this laboratory have shown that human infants (<12 mo old) respond appropriately to transient changes in sensory input during stepping. We examined how infants adapted to a more enduring change in sensory input by applying load to one limb during stepping. A small weight (500-900 g) was strapped around the lower leg of infants aged 3-11 mo. Stepping with the weight on was recorded on the treadmill for a period of 0.5-3 min. The weight was then quickly detached during stepping, and the immediate response to unexpected loss of the weight recorded. Three-segment dynamic analysis of leg motion was used to estimate hip, knee, and ankle torques during swing in the sagittal plane. All infants adapted to the additional load on the leg by immediately increasing the generation of hip and knee flexor muscle torques. When the weight was removed, 7 of the 22 infants tested exhibited an after-effect (high stepping) in the first step after removal of the weight. The after-effect was manifested as an increase in toe trajectory height and hip flexion and coincided with higher hip flexor muscle torque in early swing. In an additional series of control experiments using seven infants, after-effects were shown to be unrelated to a sudden change in cutaneous input with removal of the weight. The presence of an after-effect indicates that some infants made an enduring adaptation to their stepping pattern that is revealed with the unexpected removal of the weight.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".