Modulation of leg trajectory by transcranial magnetic stimulation during walking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The primary motor cortex is involved in initiation and adaptive control of locomotion. However, the role of the motor cortex in controlling gait trajectories remains unclear. In animals, cortical neuromodulation allows for precise control of step height. We hypothesized that a similar control framework applies to humans, whereby cortical stimulation would primarily increase foot elevation. Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) was applied over the motor cortex to assess the involvement of the corticospinal tract over the limb trajectory during human walking. Ten healthy adults (aged 20-32 years) participated in treadmill walking at 1.5 km/h. TMS was applied over the left motor cortex at an intensity of 120% of the threshold to elicit a dorsiflexion of the right ankle during the swing phase of gait. Electromyographic (EMG) measurements and three-dimensional (3D) lower limb kinematics were collected. When delivered during the early swing phase, TMS led to a significant increase in the maximum height of the right toe by a mean of 34.9% ± 9.6% (21.4 mm ± 7.9 mm, p = 0.032) and knee height by 52.8% ± 14.1% (28.8 mm ± 7.7 mm, p = 0.0021) across participants. These findings indicate that TMS can influence limb trajectory during walking, highlighting its potential as a tool for studying cortical control of 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".