Balance-corrective responses to unexpected perturbations at the arms during treadmill walking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The arms have been shown to be involved in the regulation of balance during walking. The use of a walking aid enhances balance by increasing the base of support and reducing the load on the legs by partly transferring it to the arms. However, when actively engaged during a balance task, perturbations to the arms can destabilize balance. Previous studies have investigated postural adjustments associated with focal arm movements during standing and walking. However, balance-corrective reactions to unexpected perturbations to the arms during walking have not been well studied. In the present study, subjects walked on a treadmill while grasping a pair of handles when sudden perturbations were delivered by displacing the handles in the forward or backward direction. Instructing subjects to oppose the displacement of the handles resulted in strong responses in the arms that were accompanied by activation of muscles in the legs, comparable to those observed in other balance disturbance studies. Conversely, when subjects were instructed to allow the handles to move when displaced, no responses were observed in the arms. However, similar responses were observed in the legs whether subjects opposed the displacement of the handles or not when perturbations were applied at heel strike. The results from this study show that balance reactions can be elicited in the legs in response to perturbations applied at the arms, and that the expression of these responses is affected by the task engaged in by the arms.
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".