Limb, joint and pelvic kinematic control in the quail coping with steps upwards and downwards
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Small cursorial birds display remarkable walking skills and can negotiate complex and unstructured terrains with ease. The neuromechanical control strategies necessary to adapt to these challenging terrains are still not well understood. Here, we analyzed the 2D- and 3D pelvic and leg kinematic strategies employed by the common quail to negotiate visible steps (upwards and downwards) of about 10%, and 50% of their leg length. We used biplanar fluoroscopy to accurately describe joint positions in three dimensions and performed semi-automatic landmark localization using deep learning. Quails negotiated the vertical obstacles without major problems and rapidly regained steady-state locomotion. When coping with step upwards, the quail mostly adapted the trailing limb to permit the leading leg to step on the elevated substrate similarly as it did during level locomotion. When negotiated steps downwards, both legs showed significant adaptations. For those small and moderate step heights that did not induce aerial running, the quail kept the kinematic pattern of the distal joints largely unchanged during uneven locomotion, and most changes occurred in proximal joints. The hip regulated leg length, while the distal joints maintained the spring-damped limb patterns. However, to negotiate the largest visible steps, more dramatic kinematic alterations were observed. There all joints contributed to leg lengthening/shortening in the trailing leg, and both the trailing and leading legs stepped more vertically and less abducted. In addition, locomotion speed was decreased. We hypothesize a shift from a dynamic walking program to more goal-directed motions that might be focused on maximizing safety.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".