MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Body Movement Induced by Electrical Stimulation of Toe Muscles During Standing

2007· article· en· W2163921800 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueArtificial Organs · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMuscle activation and electromyography studies
Canadian institutionsToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStimulationFunctional electrical stimulationCenter of pressure (fluid mechanics)Electrical muscle stimulationMedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationBalance (ability)Leg muscleDisplacement (psychology)Flexor musclesFunctional movementAnatomyPhysicsPsychologyMechanicsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to investigate whether artificially induced muscle contractions of toe muscles using functional electrical stimulation (FES) would cause center of pressure (COP) displacement and corresponding body acceleration. Ten able-bodied subjects were asked to stand still on force plates. The flexor digitorum brevis and the flexor hallucis brevis in both legs were simultaneously stimulated using a transcutaneous FES device. The muscles were stimulated 20 times at random intervals with four different stimulation intensities. We demonstrated that the toe muscle activity induced by electrical stimulation evoked COP displacement, which generated body acceleration. As expected, a larger stimulation induced a larger COP movement and acceleration. Therefore, we propose the use of FES-induced contractions of the toe muscles as a means to control balance during FES-assisted quiet standing. Spinal cord-injured and severe-stroke patients could benefit from this electrical stimulation technique for improving FES-assisted standing.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.131
Threshold uncertainty score0.444

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.218 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it