Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39794442›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Amplitude and frequency of human gait synchronization with a machine oscillator system.

Ryan T Schroeder, James L Croft, John E A Bertram

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Ryan T SchroederBiomedical Engineering, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada. rschroeder@brocku.ca.ORCID 0000-0002-0613-3440
James L CroftFaculty of Kinesiology, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-7457-0837
John E A BertramBiomedical Engineering, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.

Funding

Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada 312117-2012
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Humans sometimes synchronize their steps to mechanical oscillations in the environment (e.g., when walking on a swaying bridge or with a wearable robot). Previous studies have discovered discrete frequencies and/or amplitudes where individuals spontaneously synchronize to external oscillations, but these parameters are often chosen arbitrarily or for convenience of a successful experiment and are sparsely sampled due to time constraints on subject availability. As a result, the parameter space under which human gait synchronization occurs is still relatively underexplored. Here we systematically measure synchronization over a broad range of parameters in machine oscillations, applied vertically near the body center of mass during walking. Two complementary experiments were utilized to characterize the amplitudes and frequencies where subjects' gait matched the oscillation frequency within ± 0.02 Hz for at least 80% of 20 consecutive steps (i.e., synchronization). Individuals were found to synchronize at lower amplitudes and in less time when the oscillation frequency was nearer their baseline step frequency, as well as over a broader range of frequencies during larger oscillation amplitudes. Subjects also had a greater tendency to synchronize with oscillation frequencies below (rather than above) their baseline step frequencies. The results of this study provide a comprehensive mapping of parameters where synchronization occurs and could inform the design of exoskeletons, rehabilitation devices and other gait-assistive technologies.

Indexed as

GaitWalkingAdultBiomechanical PhenomenaFemaleHumansMaleRoboticsYoung AdultAmplitudeEntrainmentFrequencyLocomotionOscillatorWalking

Identifiers

PMID39794442
PMCPMC11723955

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.