|
| |
|
|
|
|
||||
| Home Help Feedback Subscriptions Archive Search Table of Contents | ||||
|
Fig. 4. Coupling strength of rules 1 and 2 between contralateral legs. Likelihood
of protraction in receiver legs of one side relative to time to of touch-down
(t–ttrans10) in sender legs of the other side. Same
plot details as in Fig. 3.
(Top) Outer legs are sender legs, inner legs are receiver legs; (bottom) inner
legs are sender legs, outer legs are receiver legs. For middle legs,
likelihood values deviate little from the baseline, indicating complete lack
of contralateral coupling. Coupling strength of rules 1 and 2 between
intrasegmental front and hind legs is a lot weaker than for ipsilateral leg
pairs. During curve walking the observed changes are in the same range as the
shift of the baseline, indicating little or no context dependence.
|
