|
| |
|
|
|
|
||||
| Home Help Feedback Subscriptions Archive Search Table of Contents | ||||
|
Fig. 7. Coupling strength of rule 3 between contralateral legs. Likelihood of
protraction in receiver legs of one side relative to time of lift-off
(ttrans10) in sender legs of the other side. Same plot
details as in Fig. 6. (Top)
Outer legs are sender legs, inner legs are receiver legs; (bottom) inner legs
are sender legs, outer legs are receiver legs. Peak likelihood was close to
the expected baseline for the middle leg pair, indicating complete lack of
contralateral coupling. In front and hind legs, coupling strength associated
with rule 3 is much 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.
|
