Infants Adapt Their Stepping to Repeated Trip-Inducing Stimuli
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined whether human infants under the age of 12 mo learn to modify their stepping pattern after repeated trip-inducing stimuli. Thirty three infants aged from 5 to 11 mo were studied. The infants were held over a moving treadmill belt to induce stepping. Occasionally, a mechanical tap was applied to the dorsum of the left foot during the early swing phase to elicit a high step. In some trials, the stimulus was applied for only one step. In other trials, the foot was stimulated for a few consecutive steps. We determined whether the infants continued to show high stepping immediately after the removal of the stimuli. The results showed that after the foot was touched for two or more consecutive steps, some infants continued to demonstrate high stepping for a few steps after the removal of the stimuli (i.e., aftereffect). Such adaptation was achieved by an increase in hip and knee flexor muscle torque, which led to greater hip and knee flexion during the early swing phase. Aftereffects were more commonly seen in older infants (9 mo or older). The results indicated that before the onset of independent walking, the locomotor circuitry in human infants is capable of adaptive locomotor plasticity. The increased incidence of aftereffect in older infants also suggests that the ability to adapt to repeated trip-inducing stimuli may be related to other factors such as experience in stepping and maturation of the nervous system.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".