Nonlinear response of human trunk musculature explains neuromuscular stabilization mechanisms in sitting posture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective . Determining the roles of underlying mechanisms involved in stabilizing the human trunk during sitting is a fundamental challenge in human motor control. However, distinguishing their roles requires understanding their complex interrelations and describing them with physiologically meaningful neuromechanical parameters. The literature has shown that such mechanistic understanding contributes to diagnosing and improving impaired balance as well as developing assistive technologies for restoring trunk stability. This study aimed to provide a comprehensive characterization of the underlying neuromuscular stabilization mechanisms involved in human sitting. Approach . This study characterized passive and active stabilization mechanisms involved in seated stability by identifying a nonlinear neuromechanical physiologically-meaningful model in ten able-bodied individuals during perturbed sitting via an adaptive unscented Kalman filter to account for the nonlinear time-varying process and measurement noises. Main results . We observed that the passive mechanism provided instant resistance against gravitational disturbances, whereas the active mechanism provided delayed complementary phasic response against external disturbances by activating appropriate trunk muscles while showing non-isometric behavior. The model predicted the trunk sway behavior during perturbed sitting with high accuracy and correlation (average: 0.0007 (rad 2 ) and 86.77%). This allows a better mechanistic understanding of the roles of passive and active stabilization mechanisms involved in sitting. Significance . Our characterization approach accounts for the inherently nonlinear behavior of the neuromuscular mechanisms and physiological uncertainties, while allowing for real-time tracking and correction of parameters’ variations due to external disturbances and muscle fatigue. The outcome of our research, for the first time, (a) allows a better mechanistic understanding of the roles of passive and active stabilization mechanisms involved in sitting; (b) enables objective evaluation and targeted rehabilitative interventions for impaired balance; facilitate bio-inspired designs of assistive technologies, and (c) opens new horizons in mathematical identification of neuromechanical mechanisms employed in the stable control of human body postures and motions.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".