Stepping in time: Alpha‐mu and beta oscillations during a walking synchronization task
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interpersonal behavioral synchrony is defined as the temporal coordination of action between two or more individuals. Humans tend to synchronize their movements during repetitive movement tasks such as walking. Mobile EEG technology now allows us to examine how this happens during gait. 18 participants equipped with foot accelerometers and mobile EEG walked with an experimenter in three conditions: With their view of the experimenter blocked, walking naturally, and trying to synchronize their steps with the experimenter. The experimenter walked following a headphone metronome to keep their steps consistent for all conditions. Step behavior and synchronization between the experimenter and participant were compared between conditions. Additionally, event-related spectral perturbations (ERSPs) were time-warped to the gait cycle in order to analyze alpha-mu (7.5-12.5 Hz) and beta (16-32 Hz) rhythms over the whole gait cycle. Step synchronization was significantly higher in the synchrony condition than in the natural condition. Likewise regarding ERSPs, right parietal channel (C4, C6, CP4, CP6) alpha-mu and central channel (C1, Cz, C2) beta power were suppressed from baseline in the walking synchrony condition compared to the natural walking condition. The natural and blocked conditions were not found to be significantly different in behavioral or spectral comparisons. Our results are compatible with the view that intentional synchronization employs systems associated with social interaction as well as the central motor system.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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 teacher head, 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".