Control of Lead and Trail Limbs During Obstacle Crossing Following Stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Obstacle crossing is compromised following stroke. The purpose of this study was to quantify modifications during obstacle clearance following stroke. SUBJECTS: Twelve subjects with stroke and 12 subjects without stroke participated in the study. METHODS: Kinematic variables were measured while participants crossed a 4-cm-high obstacle. Subjects with stroke walked at a self-selected speed; subjects without stroke walked at a comparable speed and at a self-selected speed. RESULTS: Several modifications were observed following stroke with both groups walking at self-selected speeds. The affected lead limb was positioned closer to the obstacle before crossing. Affected trail-limb clearance over the obstacle was reduced. Both affected and unaffected lead and trail limbs landed closer to the obstacle after clearance. Swing time was increased in the affected lead limb after obstacle clearance. Fewer modifications were detected at matched walking speed; the trail limb still landed closer to the obstacle. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Modifications during obstacle crossing following stroke may be partly related to walking speed. The findings raise issues of safety because people with stroke demonstrated reduced clearance of a 4-cm obstacle and limb placement closer to the obstacle after clearance.
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".