MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401208982 · doi:10.1101/2024.07.16.603701

Estimating the Preferred Walking Speeds Based on the Center of Mass Work Analysis

2024· preprint· en· W4401208982 on OpenAlexaff
Seyed-Saleh Hosseini-Yazdi

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicProsthetics and Rehabilitation Robotics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWork (physics)Center of mass (relativistic)Center (category theory)Preferred walking speedComponent (thermodynamics)Computer scienceGeodesyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationSimulationEngineeringPhysicsMechanicsGeographyMechanical engineeringMedicineChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This study investigates the role of optimal push-off impulses in minimizing the total mechanical work dissipation per step, aiming to achieve passive single support work performance for a variety of walking conditions. By optimizing push-offs to cover the entire step’s energy demands, the single support work may become only storage and release of mechanical energy through tendons and tissues. Our simulations indicate that for each walking speed, there is an optimal push-off impulse that ensures energy balance without the need for additional energy input or dissipation during the subsequent single support phase when the soft tissue dissipation is negligible. For this circumstance, the step total dissipation is minimum. For level ground (even terrain), the estimated preferred walking speeds align closely with literature values for young adult (∼ 1.2 m.s −1 )and older adult (∼ 1.0 m.s −1 ) self-selected speeds, with a reduction observed for the restricted view of oncoming irregularities in the substrate terrain (15%). For walking on uneven surfaces, terrain amplitude was shown to impact walking costs quadratically, with optimal speeds declining by approximately 20% per unit increase in terrain amplitude. Key findings include evidence that net single support work remains near zero when push-off optimally covers collision and gravity work, confirming the passive nature of single support work under this condition. We also observed that the preferred speeds for older adults tend to be 12-15% lower than for younger adults, likely due to biomechanical adaptations. Beyond certain terrain amplitudes, no preferred walking speed allowed fully passive single support work, highlighting a possible biomechanical threshold where ankle push-off alone becomes insufficient and hip torque compensation may be necessary. This approach provides a framework for estimating preferred walking speeds across different terrain amplitudes (continuous parameter), varying conditions and demographics, with potential applications in designing assistive devices and gait rehabilitation protocols that reduce metabolic cost through optimal mechanical work management.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.197 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicProsthetics and Rehabilitation RoboticsFrench-language works237,207