Adaptation Behavior of Skilled Infant Bouncers: Leg Movements and Mechanisms of Control
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rhythmic behavior in nonlinear systems can be described as limit cycles or attractors. System perturbations may result in shifts between multiple attractors. We investigated individual cycle-to-cycle leg movement kinematics of three prewalking skilled infant bouncers (10.6 ±0.91 months) during four different spring frequencies (0.9, 1.15, 1.27 and 1.56 Hz). A novel visual analysis phase-plane methodology was introduced to analyze the lower body joint kinematics. It was found that as infants' bounce frequency increased to match the natural frequency of the system, their joint ranges of motion decreased and lower extremity dynamics shifted from forced to simple harmonic motion. All infants produced highly synchronized and coordinated movements, as supported by moderate to high inter- and intralimb correlations. This study extends from previous work (Habib Perez et al., 2015) by focusing on the lower extremity kinematic movements, joint coordination and the occurrence of different movement patterns for individual bounce cycles over four spring conditions.
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".