Beyond the Bottom of the Foot
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Sensory feedback from the foot dorsum during walking has only been studied globally by whole nerve stimulation. Stimulating the main nerve innervating the dorsal surface produces a functional stumble corrective response that is phase-dependently modulated. We speculated that effects evoked by activation of discrete skin regions on the foot dorsum would be topographically organized, as with the foot sole. METHODS: Nonnoxious electrical stimulation was delivered to five discrete locations on the dorsal surface of the foot during treadmill walking. Muscle activity from muscles acting at the ankle, knee, hip, and shoulder were recorded along with ankle, knee, and hip kinematics and kinetic information from forces under the foot. All data were sorted on the basis of stimulus occurrence in 12 step cycle phases, before being averaged together within a phase for subsequent analysis. RESULTS: Results reveal dynamic changes in reflex amplitudes and kinematics that are site specific and phase dependent. Most responses from discrete sites on the foot dorsum were seen in the swing phase suggesting function to conform foot trajectory to maintain stability of the moving limb. In general, responses from lateral stimulation differed from medial stimulation, and effects were largest from stimulation at the distal end of the foot at the metatarsals; that is, in anatomical locations where actual impact with an object in the environment is most likely during swing. Responses to stimulation extend to include muscles at the hip and shoulder. CONCLUSIONS: We reveal that afferent feedback from specific cutaneous locations on the foot dorsum influences stance and swing phase corrective responses. This emphasizes the critical importance of feedback from the entire foot surface in locomotor control and has application for rehabilitation after neurological injury and in footwear development.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 0.006 |
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".