Amplitude and frequency of human gait synchronization with a machine oscillator system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Humans sometimes synchronize their steps to mechanical oscillations in the environment (e.g., when walking on a swaying bridge or with a wearable robot). Previous studies have discovered discrete frequencies and/or amplitudes where individuals spontaneously synchronize to external oscillations, but these parameters are often chosen arbitrarily or for convenience of a successful experiment and are sparsely sampled due to time constraints on subject availability. As a result, the parameter space under which human gait synchronization occurs is still relatively underexplored. Here we systematically measure synchronization over a broad range of parameters in machine oscillations, applied vertically near the body center of mass during walking. Two complementary experiments were utilized to characterize the amplitudes and frequencies where subjects' gait matched the oscillation frequency within ± 0.02 Hz for at least 80% of 20 consecutive steps (i.e., synchronization). Individuals were found to synchronize at lower amplitudes and in less time when the oscillation frequency was nearer their baseline step frequency, as well as over a broader range of frequencies during larger oscillation amplitudes. Subjects also had a greater tendency to synchronize with oscillation frequencies below (rather than above) their baseline step frequencies. The results of this study provide a comprehensive mapping of parameters where synchronization occurs and could inform the design of exoskeletons, rehabilitation devices and other gait-assistive technologies.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".