4.7 Article

Context expectation influences the gait pattern biomechanics

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 13, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-32665-7

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This research investigates the influence of different scenarios on walking patterns, finding that concurrent recall of scenarios during walking activity can cause motor interference, and the evocation of scenarios before walking activity can also influence walking patterns. The study suggests that walking is influenced not only by biomechanics, but also by cognitive computations such as sensory sampling and expectation processing.
Beyond classical aspects related to locomotion (biomechanics), it has been hypothesized that walking pattern is influenced by a combination of distinct computations including online sensory/perceptual sampling and the processing of expectations (neuromechanics). Here, we aimed to explore the potential impact of contrasting scenarios (risky and potentially dangerous scenario; safe and comfortable scenario) on walking pattern in a group of healthy young adults. Firstly, and consistently with previous literature, we confirmed that the scenario influences gait pattern when it is recalled concurrently to participants' walking activity (motor interference). More intriguingly, our main result showed that participants' gait pattern is also influenced by the contextual scenario when it is evoked only before the start of walking activity (motor expectation). This condition was designed to test the impact of expectations (risky scenario vs. safe scenario) on gait pattern, and the stimulation that preceded walking activity served as prior. Noteworthy, we combined statistical and machine learning (Support-Vector Machine classifier) approaches to stratify distinct levels of analyses that explored the multi-facets architecture of walking. In a nutshell, our combined statistical and machine learning analyses converge in suggesting that walking before steps is not just a paradox.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据