Stepping behavior contributes little to balance control against continuous mediolateral trunk perturbations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Human bipedal gait is exceptionally stable, but the underlying strategies to maintain stability are unclear, especially in the frontal plane. Our study investigated balance strategies of healthy adults subjected to continuous mediolateral oscillations at the trunk during walking. We used a backpack with a passive inverted pendulum to create perturbations that were fixed, in-phase or out-of-phase with subjects' trunk. We evaluated subjects' corrective strategies and whether they yielded equivalent stability, measured by the margin of stability and the local divergence exponent. The margin of stability measure quantified adjustments in step behaviour relative to the centre of mass, and the local divergence exponent measure characterized the chaotic behaviour of the system throughout the entire trial. Among the conditions, there was no significant difference in the step width. We found a higher margin of stability for the out-of-phase condition and the lowest local divergence exponent for the in-phase condition and the highest for the fixed condition. These results indicate that the in-phase condition was more stable with respect to fluctuations throughout gait cycles, and the out-of-phase condition was more stable in terms of foot placement relative to centre of mass. To maintain equivalent or greater gait stability, subjects elected to reduce the motion of their centre of mass rather than alter step width. The reduction in centre of mass motion without a reduction in step width suggests direct control of the centre of mass to maintain stability was preferred over adjusting stepping behaviour.
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) | 0.001 | 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".