MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Mobile neuroimaging: What we have learned about the neural control of human walking, with an emphasis on EEG-based research

2024· review· en· W4396845544 on OpenAlexaff
Natalie Richer, J. Cortney Bradford, Daniel P. Ferris

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Winnipeg
FundersNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeNational Institutes of HealthNational Science Foundation
KeywordsElectroencephalographyNeuroimagingNeuroscienceBrain activity and meditationNeural correlates of consciousnessEEG-fMRIPsychologyComputer scienceHuman brainArtificial intelligenceCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Our understanding of the neural control of human walking has changed significantly over the last twenty years and mobile brain imaging methods have contributed substantially to current knowledge. High-density electroencephalography (EEG) has the advantages of being lightweight and mobile while providing temporal resolution of brain changes within a gait cycle. Advances in EEG hardware and processing methods have led to a proliferation of research on the neural control of locomotion in neurologically intact adults. We provide a narrative review of the advantages and disadvantages of different mobile brain imaging methods, then summarize findings from mobile EEG studies quantifying electrocortical activity during human walking. Contrary to historical views on the neural control of locomotion, recent studies highlight the widespread involvement of many areas, such as the anterior cingulate, posterior parietal, prefrontal, premotor, sensorimotor, supplementary motor, and occipital cortices, that show active fluctuations in electrical power during walking. The electrocortical activity changes with speed, stability, perturbations, and gait adaptation. We end with a discussion on the next steps in mobile EEG research.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.406
GPT teacher head0.501
Teacher spread0.095 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations34
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuroscience & Biobehavioral ReviewsSame topicEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesFrench-language works237,207