MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2997681105 · doi:10.1016/j.isci.2019.100796

Neuromotor Dynamics of Human Locomotion in Challenging Settings

2019· article· en· W2997681105 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueiScience · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersDeutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst
KeywordsDynamics (music)Cognitive scienceNeuroscienceNanotechnologyComputer sciencePsychologyMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Is the control of movement less stable when we walk or run in challenging settings? Intuitively, one might answer that it is, given that challenging locomotion externally (e.g., rough terrain) or internally (e.g., age-related impairments) makes our movements more unstable. Here, we investigated how young and old humans synergistically activate muscles during locomotion when different perturbation levels are introduced. Of these control signals, called muscle synergies, we analyzed the local stability and the complexity (or irregularity) over time. Surprisingly, we found that perturbations force the central nervous system to produce muscle activation patterns that are less unstable and less complex. These outcomes show that robust locomotion control in challenging settings is achieved by producing less complex control signals that are more stable over time, whereas easier tasks allow for more unstable and irregular control.

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.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.406
Threshold uncertainty score0.226

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.327 · 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