Mechanics and energetics of step-to-step transitions isolated from human walking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We isolated step-to-step transitions from other contributors to walking mechanics using a cyclical rocking task and then examined the contribution of individual joints to the total work required to redirect the velocity of the center of mass (COM). Nine participants were instructed to rock backward and forward in the sagittal plane, eliminating the need to swing the legs and progress forward. To systematically increase the required work, we increased step length from 60 to 100% of leg length, keeping rocking frequency constant. The individual limbs method quantified the COM work and the joint power method apportioned the COM work among its various sources. As predicted by a physics-based model, we found that work in rocking was performed mainly during the step-to-step transitions and increased strongly with step length. We also found that increases in the average COM work rate exacted a proportional metabolic cost. The similar patterns of COM work and COM work rate during rocking and walking support the use of rocking to isolate the mechanics of step-to-step transitions. We found that the ankle was the main joint contributing to the positive work required to redirect the COM velocity during forward rocking. At the longest length, it accounted for 88% of the work performed by the trailing leg joints. Interestingly, the summed contribution of ankle, knee and hip joint work accounted for only 39% of the front leg negative COM work during the forward transition, suggesting that most of the collision work is performed by passive tissue.
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".