Split-Belt Walking Alters the Relationship between Locomotor Phases and Cycle Duration across Speeds in Intact and Chronic Spinalized Adult Cats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During overground or treadmill walking, the stance phase and cycle durations are reduced as speed increases, whereas swing phase duration remains relatively invariant. When the speed of the left and right sides is unequal, as is the case during split-belt locomotion or when walking along a circular path, adjustments in stance and swing phases are observed, which could alter the phase/cycle duration relationships. Here, we tested this hypothesis in the left and right hindlimbs of four intact and two chronic spinal-transected adult cats during tied-belt (i.e., equal left and right speeds) and split-belt (i.e., unequal left and right speeds) walking. During split-belt walking, one side (i.e., constant limb) walked at a constant speed while the other side (varying limb) varied its speed from 0.3 to 1.0 m/s. We show that the phase/cycle duration relationships differed in both hindlimbs concurrently during split-belt walking. Specifically, the slope of the phase/cycle duration relationships for the stance/extension phase increased in the varying limb from tied-belt to split-belt walking, whereas that of the swing/flexion phase decreased. In contrast, in the constant limb, the slope of the phase/cycle duration relationships for the stance/extension phase decreased, whereas that of the swing/flexion phase increased. The results were qualitatively similar in intact and spinal-transected cats, indicating that the modulation was mediated within the spinal cord. In conclusion, we propose that neuronal networks within the spinal cord that control left and right hindlimb locomotion can differentially and simultaneously modulate phase variations when the two sides walk at different speeds.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".