Sensorimotor adaptation to sustained lower visual field occlusion during continuous locomotion with and without obstacle negotiation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The importance of having visual feedback of the lower-limb to locomotion control, has typically been examined by intermittently occluding the lower visual field (lvf) in repeated obstacle crossing trials. A consistent finding is that foot clearance increases following lvf occlusion. However, there is some evidence that the increase in clearance diminishes with further repetition. This calls into question the importance of lvf feedback in the control of locomotion. We present two studies investigating how foot clearance is affected as a result of sustained lvf occlusion during continuous locomotion over i) a level surface and ii) the same surface, but involving intermittent obstacle negotiation. In both studies, clearance increased following lvf occlusion but then diminished within a few minutes of continued walking: suggesting that the initial increase may have been an acute but transient response. After four minutes, clearance in level-walking had returned to pre-occlusion levels, whereas for obstacle crossing, clearance remained elevated and showed only a slight lessening over time. These findings provide support for the notion that lvf ex-proprioceptive information is not paramount in the control of the swinging limb/foot during overground gait, but it is customarily used in adaptive gait involving obstacle crossing in determining foot placement before the obstacle and hence clearance over it. We argue that lvf occlusion leads to a more general 'acute' perturbation of gait that is not necessarily related to the elimination of visual ex-proprioceptive feedback, and this has implications for the design of laboratory-based studies investigating the role of vision in locomotion.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".