Enhancement of Arm and Leg Locomotor Coupling With Augmented Cutaneous Feedback From the Hand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cutaneous feedback from the hand could assist with coordination between the arms and legs during locomotion. Previously we used a reduced walking model of combined arm and leg (ARM&LEG) cycling to examine the separate effects of rhythmic arm (ARM) and leg (LEG) movement. Here we use this same paradigm to test the modulation H-reflexes with and without interlimb cutaneous conditioning evoked by stimulating a nerve innervating the hand (superficial radial, SR). It was hypothesized that both ARM and LEG would contribute significantly to suppression of H-reflex amplitude during ARM&LEG. We also predicted a conservation of interlimb cutaneous conditioning during movement and an interaction between arm and leg rhythmic movement control. Subjects were seated in a recumbent ARM&LEG cycle ergometer and maintained a low-level soleus contraction for all tasks. H-reflex amplitude was facilitated by cutaneous conditioning evoked by stimulation of the SR nerve. H-reflex amplitudes were taken from recruitment curves and included modulation of 50% H max and H max. The suppressive effect of arm was less than that for LEG and ARM&LEG, while suppression during LEG and ARM&LEG were generally equivalent. For H-reflexes conditioned by cutaneous input, amplitudes during ARM&LEG instead were in between those for ARM and LEG modulation. Multiple regression analysis revealed a significant contribution for arm only in trials when SR stimulation was used to condition H-reflex amplitudes. We suggest that there is a measurable interaction between neural activity regulating arm and leg movement during locomotion that is specifically enhanced when cutaneous input from the hand is present.
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".