A mechatronic system for studying energy optimization during walking.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A general principle of human movement is that our nervous system is able to learn optimal coordination strategies. However, how our nervous system performs this optimization is not well understood. Here we design, build, and test a mechatronic system to probe the algorithms underlying optimization of energetic cost in walking. The system applies controlled fore-aft forces to a hip-belt worn by a user, decreasing their energetic cost by pulling forward or increasing it by pulling backward. The system controls the forces, and thus energetic cost, as a function of how the user is moving. In testing, we found that the system can quickly, accurately, and precisely apply target forces within a walking step. We next controlled the forces as a function of the user's step frequency and found that we could predictably reshape their energetic cost landscape. Finally, we tested whether users adapted their walking in response to the new cost landscapes created by our system, and found that users shifted their step frequency towards the new energetic minima. Our system design appears to be effective for reshaping energetic cost landscapes in human walking to study how the nervous system optimizes movement.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.003 |
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".