Memory of split-belt walking endures weeks in young children and younger adults but less so in older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Adults and children modify how they move to accommodate persistent changes in their surroundings, called motor adaptation. Walking-related motor adaption can be seen when one walks on a treadmill with two belts running at different speeds, a split-belt treadmill, where a new walking pattern is slowly adopted with practice. This has been suggested as a way to improve left-right symmetry in walking after a stroke. Central to using split-belt walking for rehabilitation is whether the adapted motor pattern is retained over days and weeks, and whether this motor memory is a function of the person’s age. When first exposed to split-belt walking, the walking is asymmetric (initial error), resembling a limp. With subsequent exposure, the error is smaller than the initial error, indicating the adaptation was remembered. Here, we explored the persistence of this memory over 24 hours, one week, and two weeks, in young children (3-6 yr old), younger adults (20-30 yr old) and older adults (50-70 yr old). We found that the motor memory declines with the interval duration, but was still evident up to 2 weeks after initial exposure. Retention of the motor memory in children and younger adults was better than older adults. Further, forgetting between trials was seen on the first day of split-belt walking especially in children and older adults, but this forgetting diminished with repeated trials. The results indicate that long-term memory of motor adaptation on the split-belt treadmill is affected by age, but it may be possible to enhance the memory by more frequent and repeated exposure. This suggests that when using split-belt adaptation in rehabilitation, the sessions should ideally be less than one week apart.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".