MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416827357 · doi:10.1002/cpz1.70228

Evoking Cutaneous Reflexes During Human Walking I. A Step‐by‐Step Methodological Approach

2025· article· en· W4416827357 on OpenAlexaff
Colin E. Benites, Gregory E. P. Pearcey, Christopher J. Arellano

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Protocols · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMuscle activation and electromyography studies
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReflexGaitTreadmillGait cycleFunctional electrical stimulationStimulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper, the first in a two-part series focused on measuring cutaneous reflexes during human walking, provides a detailed step-by-step methodology for reliably eliciting cutaneous reflexes during human treadmill walking. The procedure addresses the technical challenges of eliciting reflexes from cutaneous nerves in a consistent and reproducible manner throughout the gait cycle. Building on approaches used in previous studies, we integrate practical guidance on equipment setup, electrode placement, configuration of a foot-sensitive resistor for quantifying gait cycle parameters, and reflex measurements to enable successful implementation across laboratories with varying levels of expertise. The custom development and use of a pseudorandomized stimulation approach is a novel feature of our broader methodology and is described in detail in the second paper. The present protocol focuses on the experimental setup required to obtain high-quality reflex measurements during walking, thereby providing the basis for advanced stimulation paradigms in human sensorimotor research. © 2025 Wiley Periodicals LLC. Basic Protocol: Evoking cutaneous reflexes during human walking using a pseudorandomized approach.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent ProtocolsSame topicMuscle activation and electromyography studiesFrench-language works237,207