MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2950169708 · doi:10.1109/tnsre.2019.2917424

A Mechatronic System for Studying Energy Optimization During Walking

2019· article· en· W2950169708 on OpenAlexafffund
Surabhi N. Simha, Jeremy D. Wong, Jessica C. Selinger, J. Maxwell Donelan

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMotor Control and Adaptation
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersArmy Research OfficeNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMechatronicsComputer scienceFunction (biology)Maxima and minimaSimulationEnergy (signal processing)Systems designEnergy costControl engineeringEngineeringArtificial intelligencePhysicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 the 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 toward 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.624
Threshold uncertainty score0.627

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.188 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation EngineeringSame topicMotor Control and AdaptationFrench-language works237,207