MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2267725143 · doi:10.1152/jn.2000.83.5.2814

Could Different Directions of Infant Stepping Be Controlled by the Same Locomotor Central Pattern Generator?

2000· article· en· W2267725143 on OpenAlexaff
Tania Lamb, Jaynie F. Yang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurophysiology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMuscle activation and electromyography studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCentral pattern generatorTreadmillPhysical medicine and rehabilitationSwingOrientation (vector space)ElectromyographyPsychologyRhythmDigital pattern generatorComputer scienceMathematicsPhysical therapyMedicinePhysicsGeometryAcoustics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examined the idea of whether the same central pattern generator (CPG) for locomotion can control different directions of walking in humans. Fifty-two infants, aged 2-11 mo, were tested. Infants were supported to walk on a treadmill at a variety of speeds. If forward stepping was elicited, stepping in the other directions (primarily sideways and backward) was attempted. The orientation of the infant on the treadmill belt determined the direction of stepping. In some infants, we also attempted to obtain a smooth transition from one direction to another by gradually changing the orientation of the infant during a stepping sequence. Limb segment motion and surface electromyography from the muscles of the lower limb were recorded. Most infants who showed sustained forward walking also could walk in all other directions. Thirty-three of 34 infants tested could step sideways. The success of eliciting backward stepping was 69%. Most of the infants who did not meet our backward stepping criteria did, however, make stepping movements. The different directions of stepping had similar responses to changes in treadmill speed. The relationship between stance and swing phase durations and cycle duration were the same regardless of the direction of stepping across a range of speeds. Some differences were noted in the muscle activation patterns during different directions of walking. For example, the hamstrings were much more active during the swing phase of backward walking compared with forward walking. The quadriceps was more active in the trailing leg during sideways walking. In some infants, we were able to elicit stepping along a continuum of directions. We found no discrete differences in either the electromyographic patterns or the temporal parameters of stepping as the direction of stepping was gradually changed. The results support the idea that the same locomotor CPG controls different directions of stepping in human infants. The fact that most infants were able to step in all directions, the similarity in the response to speed changes, and the absence of any discrete changes as the direction of stepping was changed gradually are all consistent with this hypothesis.

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 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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.911
Threshold uncertainty score0.308

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.203 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations105
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeurophysiologySame topicMuscle activation and electromyography studiesFrench-language works237,207