Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41927826›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2026

Quantifying human adaptation to a novel split-belt walking condition after broad experience at different belt speeds.

Zijie Jin, Jason Isa, Samuel A Burden, Kimberly A Ingraham

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Zijie JinDepartment of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Jason IsaDepartment of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Samuel A BurdenDepartment of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Kimberly A IngrahamDepartment of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. kingra@uw.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Humans can adapt their gait to minimize energy cost when given sufficient exposure to novel energy landscapes. However, it remains unclear whether broad experience in one energy landscape is sufficient to initiate continuous optimization when encountering similar but distinct conditions. In this study, we used visual biofeedback to guide 15 participants to broadly explore walking gaits with different step length asymmetries (SLAs) while walking on a split-belt treadmill with a large split-belt ratio. We subsequently tested how participants adapted their walking patterns during free exploration trials at the large split-belt ratio and at a new, smaller split-belt ratio. Our results showed that during guided exploration, participants were exposed to energetically favorable conditions. However, participants did not self-select walking patterns that minimized their metabolic cost during either free exploration trial. When first exposed to the smaller split-belt ratio, participants immediately adjusted their leg swing distances and belt contact times while maintaining similar step lengths. Throughout this trial, they continued adapting by significantly increasing step lengths on the fast belt. Taken together, our results suggest that participants actively modified their gait strategy when exposed to an energy landscape distinct from the one in which they gained broad experience.

Indexed as

Adaptation, PhysiologicalGaitWalkingAdultBiomechanical PhenomenaEnergy MetabolismExercise TestFemaleHumansMaleYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID41927826
PMCPMC13187303

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.