Lack of adaptation during prolonged split‐belt locomotion in the intact and spinal cat
Bibliographic record
Abstract
KEY POINTS: During split-belt locomotion in humans where one leg steps faster than the other, the symmetry of step lengths and double support periods of the slow and fast legs is gradually restored. When returning to tied-belt locomotion, there is an after-effect, with a reversal in the asymmetry observed in the early split-belt period, indicating that the new pattern was stored within the central nervous system. In this study, we investigated if intact and spinal-transected cats show a similar pattern of adaptation to split-belt locomotion by measuring kinematic variables and electromyography before, during and after 10 min of split-belt locomotion. The results show that cats do not adapt to prolonged split-belt locomotion. Our results suggest an important physiological difference in how cats and humans respond to prolonged asymmetric locomotion. ABSTRACT: In humans, gait adapts to prolonged walking on a split-belt treadmill, where one leg steps faster than the other, by gradually restoring the symmetry of interlimb kinematic variables, such as double support periods and step lengths, and by reducing muscle activity (EMG, electromyography). The adaptation is also characterized by reversing the asymmetry of interlimb variables observed during the early split-belt period when returning to tied-belt locomotion, termed an after-effect. To determine if cats adapt to prolonged split-belt locomotion and to assess if spinal locomotor circuits participate in the adaptation, we measured interlimb variables and EMG in intact and spinal-transected cats before, during and after 10 min of split-belt locomotion. In spinal cats, only the hindlimbs performed stepping with the forelimbs stationary. In intact and spinal cats, step lengths and double support periods were, on average, symmetric, during tied-belt locomotion. They became asymmetric during split-belt locomotion and remained asymmetric throughout the split-belt period. Upon returning to tied-belt locomotion, symmetry was immediately restored. In intact cats, the mean EMG amplitude of hindlimb extensors increased during split-belt locomotion and remained increased throughout the split-belt period, whereas in spinal cats, EMG amplitude did not change. Therefore, the results indicate that the locomotor pattern of cats does not adapt to prolonged split-belt locomotion, suggesting an important physiological difference in the control of locomotion between cats and humans. We propose that restoring left-right symmetry is not required to maintain balance during prolonged asymmetric locomotion in the cat, a quadruped, as opposed to human bipedal locomotion.
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) | 0.000 | 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".