The Role of Entrainment in Human Walking: Energy Minimization in Oscillating Environments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract During locomotion, humans often entrain (i.e. synchronize) their steps to external oscillations: e.g. swaying bridges, tandem walking, bouncy harnesses, vibrating treadmills, exoskeletons. Previous studies have discussed the role of nonlinear oscillators (e.g. central pattern generators) in facilitating entrainment. However, the underlying benefits of entrainment are unknown. Given substantial evidence that humans prioritize economy during locomotion, we tested whether reduced metabolic expenditure accompanies human entrainment to vertical force oscillations, where frequency and amplitude were prescribed via a custom mechatronics system during walking. Although metabolic cost was not significantly reduced during entrainment, individuals who experienced negative work from oscillations had a higher cost than those who experienced positive work, and subjects generally selected phase relationships indicating the latter. It is possible that individuals use mechanical cues to infer energy cost and inform effective gait strategies. If so, an accurate prediction may rely on the relative stability of interactions with the environment. Our results suggest that entrainment is preferred over a wide range of oscillation parameters, though not as a direct priority for minimizing metabolic cost. Instead, entrainment may act to stabilize interactions with the environment, thus increasing predictability for the effective implementation of internal models that guide energy minimization.
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 | 0.001 | 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".