Asymmetry in Three-Dimensional Sprinting with and without Running-Specific Prostheses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As a whole, human sprinting seems to be a completely periodic and symmetrical motion. This view is changed when a person runs with a running-specific prosthesis after a unilateral amputation. The aim of our study is to investigate differences and similarities between unilateral below-knee amputee and non-amputee sprinters—especially with regard to whether asymmetry is a distracting factor for sprint performance. We established three-dimensional rigid multibody models of one unilateral transtibial amputee athlete and for reference purposes of three non-amputee athletes. They consist of 16 bodies (head, ipper, middle and lower trunk, upper and lower arms, hands, thighs, shanks and feet/running specific prosthesis) with 30 or 31 degrees of freedom (DOFs) for the amputee and the non-amputee athletes, respectively. Six DOFs are associated with the floating base, the remaining ones are rotational DOFs. The internal joints are equipped with torque actuators except for the prosthetic ankle joint. To model the spring-like properties of the prosthesis, the actuator is replaced by a linear spring-damper system. We consider a pair of steps which is modeled as a multiphase problem with each step consisting of a flight, touchdown and single-leg contact phase. Each phase is described by its own set of differential equations. By combining motion capture recordings with a least squares optimal control problem formulation including constraints, we reconstructed the dynamics of one sprinting trial for each athlete. The results show that even the non-amputee athletes showed less symmetrical sprinting than expected when examined on an individual level. Nevertheless, the asymmetry is much more pronounced in the amputee athlete. The amputee athlete applies larger torques in the arm and trunk joints to compensate the asymmetry and experiences a destabilizing influence of the trunk movement. Hence, the inter-limb asymmetry of the amputee has a significant effect on the control of the sprint movement and the maintenance of an upright body position.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".