A reliable and efficient adaptive Bayesian method to assess static lower limb position sense
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Lower limb proprioception is critical for maintaining stability during gait and may impact how individuals modify their movements in response to changes in the environment and body state, a process termed "sensorimotor adaptation". However, the connection between lower limb proprioception and sensorimotor adaptation during human gait has not been established. We suspect this gap is due in part to the lack of reliable, efficient methods to assess global lower limb proprioception in an ecologically valid context. NEW METHOD: We assessed static lower limb proprioception using an alternative forced choice task, administered twice to determine test-retest reliability. Participants stood on a dual-belt treadmill which passively moved one limb to stimulus locations selected by a Bayesian adaptive algorithm. At the stimulus locations, participants judged relative foot positions and the algorithm estimated the point of subjective equality (PSE) and the uncertainty of lower limb proprioception. RESULTS: Using the Bland-Altman method, combined with Bayesian statistics, we found that both the PSE and uncertainty estimates had good reliability. COMPARISON WITH EXISTING METHOD(S): Current methods assessing static lower limb proprioception do so within a single joint, in non-weight bearing positions, and rely heavily on memory. One exception assessed static lower limb proprioception in standing but did not measure reliability and contained confounds impacting participants' judgments, which we experimentally controlled here. CONCLUSIONS: This efficient and reliable method assessing lower limb proprioception will aid future mechanistic understanding of locomotor adaptation and serve as a useful tool for basic and clinical researchers studying balance and falls.
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 | 0.010 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".