Adapting Locomotion to Different Surface Compliances: Neuromuscular Responses and Changes in Movement Dynamics
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
Knowledge of how the nervous system deals with surfaces with different physical properties such as compliance that challenge balance during locomotion is of importance as we are constantly faced with these situations every day. The purpose of this study was to examine the control of center of mass (COM) and lower limb dynamics and recovery response modulation of muscle activity during locomotion across an unexpected compliant surface and in particular, scaling behavior across different levels of compliance. Eight young adults walked along a walkway and stepped on an unexpected compliant surface in the middle of the travel path. There were three different levels of surface compliance, and participants experienced either no compliant surface or one of the three compliant surfaces during each trial that were presented in a blocked or random fashion. Whole body kinematics were collected along with surface electromyography (EMG) of selected bilateral lower limb and trunk muscles. The recovery response to the first compliant-surface trial demonstrated muscle onset latencies between 97 and 175 ms, and activity was modulated while on the compliant surface. Vertical COM trajectory was not preserved after contact with the compliant surface: peak vertical COM, while on the compliant surface was lower than when on stable ground. Perturbed-limb knee flexion after toe-off increased with increased surface compliance, which enabled toe clearance with the ground to be similar to control trials. The results suggest that stepping off of a compliant surface is actively modulated by the CNS and is geared toward maintaining dynamic stability.
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) | 0.000 | 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 it