Fast visual prediction and slow optimization of preferred walking speed
Bibliographic record
Abstract
People prefer walking speeds that minimize energetic cost. This may be accomplished by directly sensing metabolic rate and adapting gait to minimize it, but only slowly due to the compounded effects of sensing delays and iterative convergence. Visual and other sensory information is available more rapidly and could help predict which gait changes reduce energetic cost, but only approximately because it relies on prior experience and an indirect means to achieve economy. We used virtual reality to manipulate visually presented speed while 10 healthy subjects freely walked on a self-paced treadmill to test whether the nervous system beneficially combines these two mechanisms. Rather than manipulating the speed of visual flow directly, we coupled it to the walking speed selected by the subject and then manipulated the ratio between these two speeds. We then quantified the dynamics of walking speed adjustments in response to perturbations of the visual speed. For step changes in visual speed, subjects responded with rapid speed adjustments (lasting <2 s) and in a direction opposite to the perturbation and consistent with returning the visually presented speed toward their preferred walking speed, when visual speed was suddenly twice (one-half) the walking speed, subjects decreased (increased) their speed. Subjects did not maintain the new speed but instead gradually returned toward the speed preferred before the perturbation (lasting >300 s). The timing and direction of these responses strongly indicate that a rapid predictive process informed by visual feedback helps select preferred speed, perhaps to complement a slower optimization process that seeks to minimize energetic cost.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".