The Utility of Interappendicular Connections in Bipedal Locomotion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Homo sapiens constitute the only currently obligate bipedal mammals and, as it stands, upright bipedal locomotion is a defining characteristic of humans. Indeed, while the evolution to bipedalism has allowed for the upper limbs to be liberated from ground contact during ambulation, their role in locomotion is far from obsolete. Rather, there is reason to believe that arm swing offers important mechanical and neurological advantages to bipedal locomotion. In this short review, we present some compelling findings on the neural connections between the arms and legs during human locomotion. We begin with a description of the importance of arm swing during walking from a mechanical perspective. Then, we examine evidence for the existence of interappendicular connections that converge along with peripheral afferents, descending inputs, and propriospinal projections, onto the neural circuits innervating the muscles of the arms and legs. The varied effects of interappendicular coupling on the neural control of locomotion are also examined in cases of neurological injury. We use the insight gained from these collected works as well as those from our own studies on locomotor training to discuss strategies to use interappendicular connections to rehabilitate walking in individuals experiencing loss of function after debilitating spinal cord injury.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".