Selection and Coordination of Human Locomotor Forms Following Cerebellar Damage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We have previously shown that control subjects use two distinct temporal strategies when stepping on an inclined surface during walking: one for level and 10 degrees surfaces and another for 20 and 30 degrees surfaces. These two temporal strategies were characterized by systematic shifts in the timing of muscle activity and peak joint angles. We examined whether cerebellar subjects with mild to moderate gait ataxia were impaired in their ability to select these two temporal strategies, adjust peak joint angle amplitudes, and/or adjust one joint appropriately with respect to movements and constraints at another joint. Subjects walked on a level surface and on different wedges (10, 20, and 30 degrees ) presented in the context of level walking. In a single trial, a subject walked on a level surface in approach to a wedge, took a single step on the wedge, and continued walking on an elevated level surface beyond the wedge. Cerebellar subjects used two temporal strategies, one for the level and 10 degrees surfaces and another for 20 and 30 degrees surfaces. Cerebellar strategies were similar to those used by controls except for the timing of ankle-joint movement on the steeper wedges. Cerebellar subjects adjusted the peak amplitudes of individual joint angles normally, with the exception of peak ankle plantarflexion. However, they exhibited greater trial-to-trial variability of peak hip and knee joint angles that increased as a function of wedge inclination. The most substantial deficit noted in the cerebellar group was in the relative movement of multiple joints. Cerebellar subjects demonstrated multijoint coordination deficits in all conditions, although these deficits were most pronounced during stance on the steeper wedges. On the 30 degrees wedge, cerebellar subjects showed abnormal relative movement of hip, knee, and ankle joints and the most substantial decomposition of movement. We speculate that to simplify multijoint control, cerebellar subjects decomposed their movement by fixing the ankle joint in a dorsiflexed position on the steepest wedges. Our results suggest that the cerebellum may not be critical in selecting the basic motor patterns for the two temporal strategies because cerebellar subjects produced appropriate timing shifts at most joints. Instead, our data suggest that the cerebellum is most critical for adjusting the relative movement of multiple joints, especially to accommodate external constraints.
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".