Addition of a Cognitive Task During Walking Alters Lower Body Muscle Activity
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study compared electromyography of five leg muscles during a single walking task (WALK) to a dual task (walking + cognitive task; COG) in 40 individuals (20 M and 20 F) using a wavelet analysis technique. It was hypothesized that muscle activation during the dual task would differ significantly from the walking task with respect to both timing (H1) and frequency (H2). The mean overall intensity for the COG trials was 4.1% lower for the tibialis anterior and 5.5% higher for the gastrocnemius medialis than in the WALK trials. The changes between the WALK and COG trials were short 50 ms bursts that occurred within 100 ms of heel strike in the tibialis anterior, and longer activation periods during the stance phase in the gastrocnemius medialis. No changes in overall intensity were observed in the peroneus longus, gastrocnemius lateralis, or soleus. Furthermore, no clear frequency bands within the signal could further characterize the overall changes in muscle activity during the COG task. This advances our understanding of how the division of attentional resources affects muscle activity in a healthy population of adults.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it