Humans plan for the near future to walk economically on uneven terrain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Humans experience small fluctuations in their gait when walking on uneven terrain. The fluctuations deviate from the steady, energy-minimizing pattern for level walking and have no obvious organization. But humans often look ahead when they walk, and could potentially plan anticipatory fluctuations for the terrain. Such planning is only sensible if it serves some an objective purpose, such as maintaining constant speed or reducing energy expenditure, that is also attainable within finite planning capacity. Here, we show that humans do plan and perform optimal control strategies on uneven terrain. Rather than maintaining constant speed, they make purposeful, anticipatory speed adjustments that are consistent with minimizing energy expenditure. A simple optimal control model predicts economical speed fluctuations that agree well with experiments with humans (N = 12) walking on seven different terrain profiles (correlated with model [Formula: see text] , [Formula: see text] all terrains). Participants made repeatable speed fluctuations starting about six to eight steps ahead of each terrain feature (up to ±7.5 cm height difference each step, up to 16 consecutive features). Nearer features matter more, because energy is dissipated with each succeeding step's collision with ground, preventing momentum from persisting indefinitely. A finite horizon of continuous look-ahead and motor working space thus suffice to practically optimize for any length of terrain. Humans reason about walking in the near future to plan complex optimal control sequences.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".