Increasing the gradient of energetic cost does not initiate adaptation in human walking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract When in a new situation, the nervous system may benefit from adapting its control policy. In determining whether or not to initiate this adaptation, the nervous system may rely on some features of the new situation. Here we tested whether one such feature is salient cost savings. We changed cost saliency by manipulating the gradient of participants’ energetic cost landscape during walking. We hypothesized that steeper gradients would cause participants to spontaneously adapt their step frequency to lower costs. To manipulate the gradient, a mechatronic system applied controlled fore-aft forces to the waist of participants as a function of their step frequency as they walked on a treadmill. These forces increased the energetic cost of walking at high step frequencies and reduced it at low step frequencies. We successfully created three cost landscapes of increasing gradients, where the natural variability in participants’ step frequency provided cost changes of 3.6% (shallow), 7.2% (intermediate) and 10.2% (steep). Participants did not spontaneously initiate adaptation in response to any of the gradients. Using metronome-guided walking— a previously established protocol for eliciting initiation of adaptation—participants next experienced a step frequency with a lower cost. Participants then adapted by −1.41±0.81 (p=0.007) normalized units away from their originally preferred step frequency obtaining cost savings of 4.80±3.12%. That participants would adapt under some conditions, but not in response to steeper cost gradients, suggests that the nervous system does not solely rely on the gradient of energetic cost to initiate adaptation in novel situations.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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".