Spinal and Brain Control of Human Walking: Implications for Retraining of Walking
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
In this update, the authors will discuss evidence for both spinal and brain regulation of walking in humans. They will consider the sensory control of walking in young babies and spinal cord-injured adults, two models with weak descending input from the brain, to suggest that subcortical structures are important in shaping walking behavior. Based on evidence from development, the authors suggest that the primitive pattern of walking seen in babies forms the base upon which additional features are added by supraspinal input as independent walking develops. Increasing evidence suggests the motor cortex is important in the control of level-ground walking in adults, in contrast to quadrupeds. This brain input seems particularly important for distal flexors in the leg. Finally, the authors will consider evidence that the recovery of walking after incomplete spinal cord injuries is dependent on the presence of descending input from the motor cortex and our ability to strengthen that input. These findings imply that training methods for improving walking after injury to the nervous system must promote the involvement of both spinal and brain circuits.
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) | 0.001 | 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