Characterizing the performance of human leg external force control
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our legs act as our primary contact with the surrounding environment, generating external forces that enable agile motion. To be agile, the nervous system has to control both the magnitude of the force that the feet apply to the ground and the point of application of this force. The purpose of this study was to characterize the performance of the healthy human neuromechanical system in controlling the force-magnitude and position of an externally applied force. To accomplish this, we built an apparatus that immobilized participants but allowed them to exert variable but controlled external forces with a single leg onto a ground embedded force plate. We provided real-time visual feedback of either the leg force-magnitude or force-position that participants were exerting against the force platform and instructed participants to best match their real-time signal to prescribed target step functions. We tested target step functions of a range of sizes and quantified the responsiveness and accuracy of the control. For the control of force-magnitude and for intermediate step sizes of 0.45 bodyweights, we found a bandwidth of 1.8 ± 0.5 Hz, a steady-state error of 2.6 ± 0.9%, and a steady-state variability of 2.7 ± 0.9%. We found similar control performance in terms of responsiveness and accuracy across step sizes and between force-magnitude and position control. Increases in responsiveness correlated with reductions in other measures of control performance, such as a greater magnitude of overshooting. We modelled the observed control performance and found that a second-order model was a good predictor of external leg force control. We discuss how benchmarking force control performance in young healthy humans aids in understanding differences in agility between humans, between humans and other animals, and between humans and engineered systems.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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".