Developmental constraints of quadrupedal coordination across crawling styles in human infants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Human infants can crawl using several very different styles; this diversity appears at first glance to contradict our previous findings from hands-and-knees crawling, which suggested that there were strict limitations on coordination, imposed either mechanically or by the developing nervous system. To determine whether coordination was similarly restricted across crawling styles, we studied free crawling overground in 22 infants who used a number of different locomotor strategies. Despite the wide variety in the use of individual limbs and even the number of limbs used, the duration of the stance phase increased with duration of cycle, whereas the duration of the swing phase remained more constant. Additionally, all infants showed organized, rhythmic interlimb coordination. Alternating patterns (e.g., trotlike) predominated (86% of infants). Alternatively, yet much less frequently, all limbs used could work in synchrony (14% of infants). Pacelike patterns were never observed, even in infants that crawled with the belly remaining in contact with the ground so that stability was not a factor. To explore the robustness of the interlimb coordination, a perturbation that prolonged swing of the leg was imposed on 14 additional infants crawling on hands and knees overground or on the treadmill. The perturbation led to a resetting of the crawling pattern, but never to a change in the coordination of the limbs. The findings concur with those regarding other infant animals, together suggesting that the nervous system itself limits the coordination patterns available at a young age.
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".