Foot placement relies on state estimation during visually guided walking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As we walk, we must accurately place our feet to stabilize our motion and to navigate our environment. We must also achieve this accuracy despite imperfect sensory feedback and unexpected disturbances. In this study we tested whether the nervous system uses state estimation to beneficially combine sensory feedback with forward model predictions to compensate for these challenges. Specifically, subjects wore prism lenses during a visually guided walking task, and we used trial-by-trial variation in prism lenses to add uncertainty to visual feedback and induce a reweighting of this input. To expose altered weighting, we added a consistent prism shift that required subjects to adapt their estimate of the visuomotor mapping relationship between a perceived target location and the motor command necessary to step to that position. With added prism noise, subjects responded to the consistent prism shift with smaller initial foot placement error but took longer to adapt, compatible with our mathematical model of the walking task that leverages state estimation to compensate for noise. Much like when we perform voluntary and discrete movements with our arms, it appears our nervous systems uses state estimation during walking to accurately reach our foot to the ground. NEW & NOTEWORTHY: Accurate foot placement is essential for safe walking. We used computational models and human walking experiments to test how our nervous system achieves this accuracy. We find that our control of foot placement beneficially combines sensory feedback with internal forward model predictions to accurately estimate the body's state. Our results match recent computational neuroscience findings for reaching movements, suggesting that state estimation is a general mechanism of human motor control.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".