Interlimb Coordination in Human Crawling Reveals Similarities in Development and Neural Control With Quadrupeds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study of quadrupeds has furnished most of our understanding of mammalian locomotion. To allow a more direct comparison of coordination between the four limbs in humans and quadrupeds, we studied crawling in the human, a behavior that is part of normal human development and mechanically more similar to quadrupedal locomotion than is bipedal walking. Interlimb coordination during hands-and-knees crawling is compared between humans and quadrupeds and between human infants and adults. Mechanical factors were manipulated during crawling to understand the relative contributions of mechanics and neural control. Twenty-six infants and seven adults were studied. Video, force plate, and electrogoniometer data were collected. Belt speed of the treadmill, width of base, and limb length were manipulated in adults. Influences of unweighting and limb length were explored in infants. Infants tended to move diagonal limbs together (trot-like). Adults additionally moved ipsilateral limbs together (pace-like). At lower speeds, movements of the four limbs were more equally spaced in time, with no clear pairing of limbs. At higher speeds, running symmetrical gaits were never observed, although one adult galloped. Widening stance prevented adults from using the pace-like gait, whereas lengthening the hind limbs (hands-and-feet crawling) largely prevented the trot-like gait. Limb length and unweighting had no effect on coordination in infants. We conclude that human crawling shares features both with other primates and with nonprimate quadrupeds, suggesting similar underlying mechanisms. The greater restriction in coordination patterns used by infants suggests their nervous system has less flexibility.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".