Effects of arm swing amplitude and lower limb asymmetry on motor variability patterns during treadmill gait
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Motor variability is a fundamental feature of gait. Altered arm swing and lower limb asymmetry (LLA) may be contributing factors having been shown to affect the magnitude and dynamics of variability in spatiotemporal and trunk motion. However, the effects on lower limb joints remain unclear. Full-body kinematics of 15 healthy young adults were recorded during treadmill walking using the Computer-Assisted Rehabilitation Environment system. Participants completed six trials, combining three arm swing (AS) amplitude (normal, active, held) and two LLA (symmetrical, asymmetrical) conditions. The mean standard deviation (meanSD), maximum Lyapunov exponent (λ max ), detrended fluctuation analysis scaling exponent of range of motion (DFAα), and sample entropy (SaEn) were computed for tridimensional trunk, pelvis, and lower limb joint angles, and compared using repeated-measures ANOVAs. Relative to normal AS, active AS increased meanSD of all joint angles, λ max of frontal plane hip and ankle angles, and SaEn of sagittal plane ankle angles. Active AS, however, did not affect λ max or SaEn of trunk or pelvis angles. LLA increased meanSD of sagittal plane joint angles, λ max of Euclidean norm trunk angle and of lower limb joint angles, and SaEn of ankle dorsiflexion/ plantarflexion, but decreased SaEn of tridimensional trunk angles and hip rotation in the slower moving leg. Alterations in lower limb variability with active AS and LLA suggest that young adults actively exploit their lower limb redundancies to maintain gait. This appears to preserve trunk stability and regularity during active AS but not during LLA.
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".