Cutaneous sensory feedback from paw pads affects lateral balance control during split-belt locomotion in the cat
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cutaneous sensory feedback from the paw pads plays an important role in regulating body balance, especially in challenging environments like ladder or slope walking. Here, we investigated the contribution of cutaneous sensory feedback from the paw pads to balance control in cats stepping on a split-belt treadmill. Fore- and hindpaws were anesthetized unilaterally using lidocaine injections. We evaluated body balance in intact and compromised cutaneous feedback conditions during split-belt locomotion with belt speed ratios of 0.5, 1.0, 1.5 and 2.0. Measures of body balance included step width, relative duration of limb support phases, lateral bias of center of mass (CoM) and margins of static and dynamic stability. In the intact condition, static and dynamic balance declined with increasing belt-speed ratio due to a lateral shift of the CoM toward the borders of support on the slower moving belt. Anesthesia of the ipsilateral paws improved locomotor balance with increasing belt speed ratios by reversing the CoM shift, decreasing the relative duration of the two-limb support phase, increasing the duration of four- or three-limb support phases, increasing the hindlimb step width and static stability. We observed no changes in most balance measures in anesthetized conditions during tied-belt locomotion at 0.4 m s−1. CoM lateral displacements closely resembled those of the inverted pendulum and of human walking. We propose that unilaterally compromised cutaneous feedback from the paw pads is compensated by improving lateral balance and by shifting the body toward the anesthetized paws to increase tactile sensation during the stance phase.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".