Influence of the windlass mechanism on arch-spring mechanics during dynamic foot arch deformation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The function of the human foot is described dichotomously as a compliant structure during mid-stance and a stiff lever during push-off. The arch-spring and the windlass mechanisms, respectively, describe each of these behaviours; however, their interaction has not been quantified to date. We hypothesized that by engaging the windlass mechanism with metatarsophalangeal joint (MTPJ) dorsiflexion, we would observe stiffening of the arch and reduced energy absorption and dissipation during dynamic compressions of the foot. Using a custom apparatus, the MTPJ angle was fixed at 30 degrees of plantarflexion, neutral or 30 degrees of dorsiflexion for nine participants, with the shank positioned similarly to the end of mid-stance. The arch was compressed at two speeds, with the faster speed comparable to walking around 1.5 m s −1 . Six cameras captured the compression and elongation of the arch, along with other kinematic variables, synchronously with the ground reaction force. Combining these measures, we computed the energy absorbed, returned and dissipated in the arch. Contrary to our hypothesis, when the windlass mechanism was engaged, the arch elongated more, and absorbed and dissipated more energy than when it was not engaged. This engagement of the windlass altered the rotational axis of the mid-foot, which probably oriented the arch-spanning structures closer to their resting length, increasing their compliance. This study provides novel evidence for an interplay between the windlass and arch-spring mechanisms that aids in regulation of energy storage within the foot.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".