Modified stepping behaviour during outdoor winter walking increases resistance to forward losses of stability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Healthy humans are proficient at maintaining stability when faced with diverse walking conditions, however, the control strategies that lead to this proficiency are unclear. Previous laboratory-based research has predominantly concluded that corrective stepping is the main strategy, but whether this finding holds when facing everyday obstacles outside of the laboratory is uncertain. We investigated changes in gait stability behaviour when walking outdoors in the summer and winter, hypothesizing that as ground conditions worsened in the winter, the stepping strategy would be hindered. Stability would then be maintained through compensatory strategies such as with ankle torques and trunk rotation. Data was collected in the summer and winter using inertial measurement units to collect kinematics and instrumented insoles to collect vertical ground reaction forces. Using the goodness of fit for a multivariate regression between the centre of mass state and foot placement we found that, counter to our hypothesis, stepping was not hindered by winter conditions. Instead, the stepping strategy was modified to increase the anterior-posterior margin of stability, increasing the resistance to a forward loss of stability. With stepping being unhindered, we did not observe any additional compensation from the ankle or trunk strategies.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".