A Comparison of Self-Selected Walking Speeds and Walking Speed Variability When Data Are Collected During Repeated Discrete Trials and During Continuous Walking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A typical gait analysis data collection consists of a series of discrete trials, where a participant initiates gait, walks through a motion capture volume, and then terminates gait. This is not a normal 'everyday' gait pattern, yet measurements are considered representative of normal walking. However, walking speed, a global descriptor of gait quality that can affect joint kinematics and kinetics, may be different during discrete trials, compared to continuous walking. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of continuous walking versus discrete trials on walking speed and walking speed variability. Data were collected for 25 healthy young adults performing 2 walking tasks. The first task represented a typical gait data collection session, where subjects completed repeated trials, beginning from a standstill and walking along a 12-m walkway. The second task was continuous walking along a "figure-of-8" circuit, with 1 section containing the same 12-m walkway. Walking speed was significantly higher during the discrete trials compared to the continuous trials (p < .001), but there were no significant differences in walking speed variability between the conditions. The results suggest that choice of gait protocol may affect results where variables are sensitive to walking speed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".