Effects of cutaneous afferent feedback from the feet on human gait patterns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sensory feedback from the plantar surface of the feet can influence locomotor patterns (Zehr et al. 1999).It has been proposed that movement responses to different footwear interventions are influenced by sensory feedback systems (Nigg et al. 1999).However, the role of cutaneous feedback from the plantar surface of the feet is not understood for a) normal walking, and b) the response to shoe inserts.This thesis addressed a number of issues concerning the role of sensory feedback from cutaneous receptors in the feet on human movement patterns.Sensory feedback from cutaneous receptors in the feet is important during walking.When sensory feedback from the feet was impaired with an ice intervention, significant differences were found in plantar pressures and muscle activity.These effects were shown to be specific to the area of the foot where feedback was impaired.Textured shoe inserts were used in an attempt to facilitate sensory feedback from the feet.Significant changes in movement patterns were found, particularly in muscle activity and joint moments.Sensory feedback from the plantar surface of the feet is important in the response to different footwear interventions.It was found that the effects of medial wedge shoe inserts were dependent on sensory feedback.These results were found both when sensory feedback was impaired with an ice intervention, and when sensory feedback was thought to be facilitated by adding a textured surface to a medial wedge shoe insert.The movement response to different shoe inserts differed for people with different plantar sensitivities.In one study, significant correlations were found between sensory thresholds and plantar pressures.In another study, sensation thresholds on the plantar surface of the foot were found be significantly correlated to the changes in movement patterns that occurred while wearing inserts that differed in shape and texture.
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) | 0.002 | 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 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".