MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3135292282 · doi:10.1098/rsif.2021.0061

Stepping onto the unknown: reflexes of the foot and ankle while stepping with perturbed perceptions of terrain

2021· article· en· W3135292282 on OpenAlexaff
Ryan Riddick, Dominic J. Farris, Andrew G. Cresswell, Arthur D. Kuo, Luke A. Kelly

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of The Royal Society Interface · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMotor Control and Adaptation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Health and Medical Research Council
KeywordsElectromyographyAnkleReflexPhysical medicine and rehabilitationTerrainFoot (prosody)KinematicsLatency (audio)Sensory systemAnatomyPsychologyComputer scienceMedicineNeurosciencePhysicsGeographyCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Unanticipated variations in terrain can destabilize the body. The foot is the primary interface with the ground and we know that cutaneous reflexes provide important sensory feedback. However, little is known about the contribution of stretch reflexes from the muscles within the foot to upright stability. We used intramuscular electromyography measurements of the foot muscles flexor digitorum brevis (FDB) and abductor hallucis (AH) to show for the first time how their short-latency stretch reflex response (SLR) may play an important role in responding to stepping perturbations. The SLR of FDB and AH was highest for downwards steps and lowest for upwards steps, with the response amplitude for level and compliant steps in between. When the type of terrain was unknown or unexpected to the participant, the SLR of AH and the ankle muscle soleus tended to decrease. We found significant relationships between the contact kinematics and forces of the leg and the SLR, but a person's expectation still had significant effects even after accounting for these relationships. Motor control models of short-latency body stabilization should not only include local muscle dynamics, but also predictions of terrain based on higher level information such as from vision or memory.

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 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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.384
Threshold uncertainty score0.203

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of The Royal Society InterfaceSame topicMotor Control and AdaptationFrench-language works237,207