MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396977719 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0293691

Foot orientation and trajectory variability in locomotion: Effects of real-world terrain

2024· article· en· W4396977719 on OpenAlexaff
Emma K. Gibson, Greg Douglas, Katelyn Jeffries, J. DELAURIER, Taylor Chestnut, Jesse M. Charlton

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLower Extremity Biomechanics and Pathologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiomechanicsSagittal planeCadenceGaitStairsFoot (prosody)TrajectoryTerrainContext (archaeology)Orientation (vector space)Physical medicine and rehabilitationSTRIDEComputer scienceSimulationGeodesyMathematicsMedicineGeologyEngineeringPhysicsGeometryGeographyAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Capturing human locomotion in nearly any environment or context is becoming increasingly feasible with wearable sensors, giving access to commonly encountered walking conditions. While important in expanding our understanding of locomotor biomechanics, these more variable environments present challenges to identify changes in data due to person-level factors among the varying environment-level factors. Our study examined foot-specific biomechanics while walking on terrain commonly encountered with the goal of understanding the extent to which these variables change due to terrain. We recruited healthy adults to walk at self-selected speeds on stairs, flat ground, and both shallow and steep sloped terrain. A pair of inertial measurement units were embedded in both shoes to capture foot biomechanics while walking. Foot orientation was calculated using a strapdown procedure and foot trajectory was determined by double integrating the linear acceleration. Stance time, swing time, cadence, sagittal and frontal orientations, stride length and width were extracted as discrete variables. These data were compared within-participant and across terrain conditions. The physical constraints of the stairs resulted in shorter stride lengths, less time spent in swing, toe-first foot contact, and higher variability during stair ascent specifically (p<0.05). Stride lengths increased when ascending compared to descending slopes, and the sagittal foot angle at initial contact was greatest in the steep slope descent condition (p<0.05). No differences were found between conditions for horizontal foot angle in midstance (p≥0.067). Our results show that walking on slopes creates differential changes in foot biomechanics depending on whether one is descending or ascending, and stairs require different biomechanics and gait timing than slopes or flat ground. This may be an important factor to consider when making comparisons of real-world walking bouts, as greater proportions of one terrain feature in a data set could create bias in the outcomes. Classifying terrain in unsupervised walking datasets would be helpful to avoid comparing metrics from different walking terrain scenarios.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicLower Extremity Biomechanics and PathologiesFrench-language works237,207