Speed-dependent modulation of phase variations on a step-by-step basis and its impact on the consistency of interlimb coordination during quadrupedal locomotion in intact adult cats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is well established that stance duration changes more than swing duration for a given change in cycle duration. Small variations in cycle duration are also observed at any given speed on a step-by-step basis. To evaluate the step-by-step effect of speed on phase variations, we measured the slopes of the linear regressions between the phases (i.e., stance, swing) and cycle duration during individual episodes at different treadmill speeds in five adult cats. We also determined the pattern of dominance, defined as the phase that varies most with cycle duration. We found a significant effect of speed on hindlimb phase variations, with significant differences observed between the slowest speed of 0.3 m/s compared with faster speeds. Moreover, although patterns of phase dominance were primarily stance/extensor dominated at the slowest speeds, as speed increased the patterns were increasingly categorized as covarying, whereby both stance/extensor and swing/flexor phases changed in approximately equal proportion with cycle duration. Speed significantly affected the relative duration of support periods as well as interlimb phasing between homolateral and diagonal pairs of limbs but not between homologous pairs of limbs. Speed also significantly affected the consistency of interlimb coordination on a step-by-step basis, being less consistent at the slowest speed of 0.3 m/s compared with faster speeds. We found a strong linear relationship between hindlimb phase variations and the consistency of interlimb coordination. Therefore, results show that phase variations on a step-by-step basis are modulated by speed, which appears to influence the consistency of interlimb coordination.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".