Ankle Joint Intrinsic Dynamics is More Complex than a Mass-Spring-Damper Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper describes a new small signal parametric model of ankle joint intrinsic mechanics in normal subjects. We found that intrinsic ankle mechanics is a third-order system and the second-order mass-spring-damper model, referred to as IBK, used by many researchers in the literature cannot adequately represent ankle dynamics at all frequencies in a number of important tasks. This was demonstrated using experimental data from five healthy subjects with no voluntary muscle contraction and at seven ankle positions covering the range of motion. We showed that the difference between the new third-order model and the conventional IBK model increased from dorsi to plantarflexed position. The new model was obtained using a multi-step identification procedure applied to experimental input/output data of the ankle joint. The procedure first identifies a non-parametric model of intrinsic joint stiffness where ankle position is the input and torque is the output. Then, in several steps, the model is converted into a continuous-time transfer function of ankle compliance, which is the inverse of stiffness. Finally, we showed that the third-order model is indeed structurally consistent with agonist-antagonist musculoskeletal structure of human ankle, which is not the case for the IBK model.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".