The Effect of an Anticipated Perturbation on Gait Variability and Stability during Treadmill Walking in Young, Healthy Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Increased movement variability in quiet standing correlates with improved standing stability following a balance perturbation. It is unknown if this translates to gait. This study aimed to determine if increasing gait variability is a strategy to improve stability. We hypothesized that 1) spatio-temporal gait features will be more variable prior to an expected perturbation than during unperturbed walking, and 2) increased spatio-temporal gait variability pre-perturbation will correlate with improved stability post-perturbation. Sixteen healthy young adults completed 15 treadmill-walking trials under two conditions (unperturbed and an expected perturbation). Short- and long-term variability of step length, width, and time were calculated. Stability was defined as the number of steps to restabilization post-perturbation. Long-term step width variability was significantly higher pre-perturbation compared to unperturbed walking. There was no significant relationship between pre-perturbation variability and post-perturbation restabilization. These findings suggest that participants increased movement variability as an exploratory strategy in anticipation of a perturbation.
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".