Bibliographic record
Abstract
1. We held infants (aged 4-12 months) over a treadmill to study how they co-ordinated the two limbs during stepping. We disturbed one limb during the stance or swing phase and recorded the responses (muscle activity and movement) from both lower limbs. Manual disturbances were applied during the stance phase by sliding the foot backward, forcing the limb into the swing phase. Disturbances were also applied in the swing phase by manually extending the hip, interfering with the forward motion of the limb. Additional disturbances were applied to see if both limbs could perform the stance and swing phase synchronously. 2. When the limb was forced to initiate the swing phase on one side, the contralateral limb either prolonged its contact with the ground or quickly established ground contact. When the forward motion of the limb was interrupted in the swing phase, the swing phase was prolonged on the disturbed side and the stance phase prolonged on the contralateral side. In most cases, one leg maintained ground contact. Moreover, it was easy to elicit bilateral, simultaneous stance phase, whereas it was difficult to elicit simultaneous swing phase. In cases where swing phase in the two limbs was initiated close in time, rhythmic alternate stepping was immediately restored in the following step. 3. We conclude that human infants can generate co-ordinated motor responses bilaterally in response to unilateral perturbations, well before the onset of independent walking.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".