Gait acts as a gate for reflexes from the foot
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During human gait, electrical stimulation of the foot elicits facilitatory P2 (medium latency) responses in TA (tibialis anterior) at the onset of the swing phase, while the same stimuli cause suppressive responses at the end of swing phase, along with facilitatory responses in antagonists. This phenomenon is called phase-dependent reflex reversal. The suppressive responses can be evoked from a variety of skin sites in the leg and from stimulation of some muscles such as rectus femoris (RF). This paper reviews the data on reflex reversal and adds new data on this topic, using a split-belt paradigm. So far, the reflex reversal in TA could only be studied for the onset and end phases of the step cycle, simply because suppression can only be demonstrated when there is background activity. Normally there are only 2 TA bursts in the step cycle, whereas TA is normally silent during most of the stance phase. To know what happens in the stance phase, one needs to have a means to evoke some background activity during the stance phase. For this purpose, new experiments were carried out in which subjects were asked to walk on a treadmill with a split-belt. When the subject was walking with unequal leg speeds, the walking pattern was adapted to a gait pattern resembling limping. The TA then remained active throughout most of the stance phase of the slow-moving leg, which was used as the primary support. This activity was a result of coactivation of agonistic and antagonistic leg muscles in the supporting leg, and represented one of the ways to stabilize the body. Electrical stimulation was given to a cutaneous nerve (sural) at the ankle at twice the perception threshold. Nine of the 12 subjects showed increased TA activity during stance phase while walking on split-belts, and 5 of them showed pronounced suppressions during the first part of stance when stimuli were given on the slow side. It was concluded that a TA suppressive pathway remains open throughout most of the stance phase in the majority of subjects. The suggestion was made that the TA suppression increases loading of the ankle plantar flexors during the loading phase of stance.
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".