arxiv: 2605.13893 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-12 · 🧬 q-bio.OT · q-bio.NC

Recognition: 1 theorem link

· Lean Theorem

From Organization to Viability: A Multi-Level Analysis of Gait Dynamics Under Occlusal Constraint

Jacques Raynal , Pierre Slangen , Elsa Raynal , Jacques Margerit

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 06:12 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧬 q-bio.OT q-bio.NC

keywords gait dynamicsocclusal constraintlatent space analysisviabilityParkinson's diseaseprincipal component analysismulti-level frameworkneuromechanical adaptation

0 comments

The pith

Comparable gait performance across occlusal conditions masks distinct longitudinal changes in latent-space organization.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper argues that similar observable performance in an adaptive system can correspond to different latent organizations, so clinical assessment must track how a configuration maintains coherence over time rather than relying on single-timepoint metrics alone. In an exploratory single-case study of a Parkinsonian patient, gait data were collected with instrumented insoles under neutral occlusion and two increased vertical-dimension conditions, with sessions repeated after eleven weeks of sensorimotor intervention. Although overall performance stayed comparable, principal-component analysis of the time series produced different centroid displacements in latent space: the largest occlusion increase showed the smallest displacement, neutral occlusion an intermediate value, and the smaller increase the largest displacement. The authors present this ordering as evidence supporting the addition of a fourth analytical level focused on viability, defined here as the capacity of a configuration to limit longitudinal reorganization.

Core claim

Although observable performance remained globally comparable across conditions, PCA-based latent-space analysis revealed differentiated longitudinal centroid displacements. OC3 exhibited the smallest displacement, ONL an intermediate displacement, and OC2.5 the largest displacement. This hierarchy supports the relevance of a Level 4 framework centered on viability, understood here as an exploratory proxy for a configuration's capacity to maintain lower longitudinal reorganization over time.

What carries the argument

Longitudinal centroid displacement within PCA-derived latent space, serving as a proxy for viability under experimentally imposed occlusal vertical-dimension constraints.

If this is right

Clinical relevance of a neuromechanical configuration may depend on its capacity to sustain a coherent trajectory over time in addition to instantaneous performance or static structure.
Different occlusal constraints can produce equivalent observable gait yet distinct degrees of longitudinal reorganization in latent space.
Viability assessment provides an independent axis of analysis beyond the three prior levels of the multi-level framework.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If the displacement hierarchy generalizes, occlusal adjustments might be evaluated for their effect on long-term stability rather than short-term performance metrics alone.
The ordering could reflect an interaction between the occlusal change and the sensorimotor intervention rather than the occlusion in isolation.
Testing whether lower centroid displacement correlates with reduced fall risk or slower motor decline in Parkinsonian patients would provide an external validation criterion for the viability proxy.

Load-bearing premise

That PCA centroid displacement measured over eleven weeks indexes a configuration's viability rather than arising from the single-case design, the concurrent sensorimotor training, or the specific choice of occlusion levels.

What would settle it

A larger multi-subject study in which no consistent difference in longitudinal centroid displacement is observed across the same three occlusion levels would undermine the reported hierarchy.

read the original abstract

Clinical interpretation often assumes that observable performance provides sufficient information about the organization of an adaptive system. However, similar observable performance may correspond to distinct latent organizations. This study extends a previous multi-level framework by introducing a fourth analytical level centered on longitudinal viability. Using an exploratory single-case design in a Parkinsonian patient, gait data were recorded with instrumented insoles under three occlusal conditions: neutral natural occlusion (ONL), a 2.5-degree increase in vertical dimension of occlusion (OC2.5), and a 3-degree increase in vertical dimension of occlusion (OC3). Two measurement sessions were conducted eleven weeks apart, during which the participant underwent a structured sensorimotor intervention. The vertical dimension of occlusion was considered as an experimentally varied constraint applied to an adaptive neuromechanical system. Although observable performance remained globally comparable across conditions, PCA-based latent-space analysis revealed differentiated longitudinal centroid displacements. OC3 exhibited the smallest displacement, ONL an intermediate displacement, and OC2.5 the largest displacement. This hierarchy supports the relevance of a Level 4 framework centered on viability, understood here as an exploratory proxy for a configuration's capacity to maintain lower longitudinal reorganization over time. These findings remain within-subject, exploratory, and non-causal. They do not establish a validated clinical threshold, causal occlusal effect, or therapeutic optimum. More generally, the work suggests that clinical relevance cannot be inferred solely from instantaneous performance or static latent structure, but may also depend on the capacity of a configuration to sustain a coherent trajectory over time.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

Single-case PCA study adds a longitudinal viability layer to the authors' gait framework but defines it directly via the displacement metric, leaving the support circular and the design too thin for firm claims.

read the letter

This paper extends the authors' prior multi-level gait work by adding an explicit Level 4 focused on longitudinal viability, measured as PCA centroid displacement over 11 weeks in one Parkinson patient under three occlusion conditions. Observable performance stayed similar across neutral, 2.5-degree, and 3-degree vertical dimension changes, but the latent-space shifts differed, with the 3-degree condition showing the smallest movement. They present this ordering as evidence that viability (capacity to sustain organization) matters beyond static performance or structure. The approach is straightforward: instrumented insoles, PCA on gait parameters, and a clear within-subject comparison. They also flag the work as exploratory, non-causal, and limited to one case with an intervening sensorimotor program, which keeps the tone honest. The main weakness is that viability is defined as lower longitudinal reorganization, which is exactly the centroid displacement they plot. That makes the hierarchy tautological rather than independently tested. With only two sessions, one participant, and no error bars, permutation checks, or controls for training effects, the observed ordering could reflect session order or measurement noise as easily as the occlusion constraint. No formal statistics appear. This is useful for readers already working on hierarchical models of adaptive neuromechanical systems who want to think about temporal stability as a separate dimension. It is less useful for anyone needing validated proxies, generalizable results, or clinical thresholds. The idea of separating instantaneous performance from how well a configuration holds together over time is worth pursuing, so the paper deserves peer review even though it will need more cases and independent validation of the viability metric to become convincing.

Referee Report

3 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports an exploratory single-case study of gait dynamics in one Parkinsonian patient under three occlusal conditions (neutral ONL, +2.5° OC2.5, +3° OC3) measured at two sessions 11 weeks apart with an intervening sensorimotor intervention. Observable performance metrics remained comparable across conditions, yet PCA latent-space analysis showed differentiated longitudinal centroid displacements (OC3 smallest, ONL intermediate, OC2.5 largest). The authors interpret this hierarchy as supporting the introduction of a Level 4 viability framework, where viability is defined as the capacity for lower longitudinal reorganization.

Significance. If the PCA centroid displacement can be shown to index viability independently of the chosen metric and design, the work would usefully extend multi-level neuromechanical analysis by demonstrating that longitudinal latent dynamics can differentiate configurations even when instantaneous performance does not. This could inform future studies of adaptive systems in clinical gait research, though the present single-case, non-causal design limits immediate generalizability.

major comments (3)

[Abstract] Abstract: viability is explicitly defined as the capacity for lower longitudinal reorganization and is measured directly by PCA centroid displacement; the claim that the observed displacement hierarchy supports the Level 4 framework is therefore tautological rather than independently validated.
[Results] Results/Methods: no statistical tests, error bars, permutation checks, or sensitivity analyses are reported for the PCA centroid displacements; with only one participant and two time points, the reliability of the ordering OC3 < ONL < OC2.5 cannot be distinguished from measurement variability or session-order effects.
[Methods] Methods: the 11-week interval includes a structured sensorimotor intervention whose effects on gait reorganization are not controlled or partialled out, leaving open the possibility that the displacement differences reflect training rather than the experimentally varied occlusal constraint.

minor comments (1)

[Abstract] Abstract and Discussion: the term 'Level 4 framework' is introduced without a concise recap of the prior three levels; a one-sentence summary of the existing hierarchy would improve readability for readers unfamiliar with the authors' previous work.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 2 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments on our exploratory single-case study. We address each major point below and have revised the manuscript to improve clarity, add explicit limitations, and avoid overstatement of the findings.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: viability is explicitly defined as the capacity for lower longitudinal reorganization and is measured directly by PCA centroid displacement; the claim that the observed displacement hierarchy supports the Level 4 framework is therefore tautological rather than independently validated.

Authors: We agree that the original abstract wording risked implying direct validation. In revision, we have rephrased the abstract to present the Level 4 viability framework as a proposed conceptual extension of the multi-level analysis, with the observed PCA centroid displacement hierarchy offered only as an exploratory illustration of its potential utility. We now explicitly state that the findings do not constitute independent validation and call for future work to test the framework separately. revision: yes
Referee: [Results] Results/Methods: no statistical tests, error bars, permutation checks, or sensitivity analyses are reported for the PCA centroid displacements; with only one participant and two time points, the reliability of the ordering OC3 < ONL < OC2.5 cannot be distinguished from measurement variability or session-order effects.

Authors: We concur that no statistical procedures were applied. Given the single-participant design and only two time points, formal statistical tests, error bars, or permutation checks are not statistically meaningful. We have added explicit language in the Results and Discussion sections clarifying that the displacement ordering is purely descriptive and exploratory, and that it cannot be distinguished from measurement variability or session-order effects on the basis of the present data. revision: partial
Referee: [Methods] Methods: the 11-week interval includes a structured sensorimotor intervention whose effects on gait reorganization are not controlled or partialled out, leaving open the possibility that the displacement differences reflect training rather than the experimentally varied occlusal constraint.

Authors: This limitation is correctly identified. The intervention occurred as part of the participant's ongoing clinical care and was not experimentally controlled. We have revised the Methods and Discussion sections to state this confound explicitly, to note that observed differences may reflect training-by-occlusion interactions, and to underscore that the study remains non-causal and exploratory. revision: yes

standing simulated objections not resolved

The single-case design with two time points precludes any meaningful statistical validation or sensitivity analysis of the displacement ordering.
Without a no-intervention control arm, the specific contribution of occlusal constraint versus the sensorimotor intervention cannot be isolated or partialled out.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Viability defined as lower PCA displacement makes observed hierarchy tautological

specific steps

self definitional [Abstract]
"This hierarchy supports the relevance of a Level 4 framework centered on viability, understood here as an exploratory proxy for a configuration's capacity to maintain lower longitudinal reorganization over time."

The hierarchy consists solely of the ordering of PCA centroid displacements across the three occlusion conditions. Viability is defined precisely as the capacity for lower reorganization, i.e., smaller displacement. The statement that the observed ordering supports the viability framework is therefore true by the paper's own definition of the term rather than by any independent criterion or external validation.

full rationale

The paper's Level 4 claim rests on a single definitional move: viability is introduced as the capacity for lower longitudinal reorganization, and the sole evidence offered is the ordering of PCA centroid displacements (smaller displacement = higher viability). Because the metric and the concept are linked by construction, the hierarchy cannot independently validate the framework. The study is explicitly exploratory and single-case, but the circularity is internal to the definitional step rather than statistical or causal.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

The claim rests on standard PCA as a dimensionality-reduction tool and the assumption that longitudinal centroid shift indexes viability; no free parameters are fitted beyond the data-driven PCA itself, and no new physical entities are postulated.

axioms (1)

domain assumption PCA provides a meaningful latent space for gait dynamics where centroid displacement reflects reorganization
Invoked when interpreting differentiated displacements as evidence for viability hierarchy

invented entities (1)

Level 4 viability framework no independent evidence
purpose: Analytical layer focused on longitudinal stability of latent organization
Introduced as extension of prior multi-level model; no independent falsifiable prediction supplied beyond the observed displacement ordering

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5592 in / 1357 out tokens · 43076 ms · 2026-05-15T06:12:19.004895+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

PCA-based latent-space analysis revealed differentiated longitudinal centroid displacements... viability, understood here as an exploratory proxy for a configuration's capacity to maintain lower longitudinal reorganization over time.

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

[1]

Observable Performance Does Not Fully Reflect System Organization: A Multi-Level Analysis of Gait Dynamics Under Occlusal Constraint

Raynal J, Slangen P, Margerit J. Observable Performance Does Not Fully Reflect System Or- ganization: A Multi-Level Analysis of Gait Dynamics Under Occlusal Constraint. arXiv. 2026. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2605.00778

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.00778 2026
[2]

Human balance and posture control during standing and walking

Winter DA. Human balance and posture control during standing and walking. Gait Posture. 1995;3(4):193–214. doi:10.1016/0966-6362(96)82849-9

work page doi:10.1016/0966-6362(96)82849-9 1995
[3]

Postural orientation and equilibrium: what do we need to know about neural control of balance to prevent falls? Age Ageing

Horak FB. Postural orientation and equilibrium: what do we need to know about neural control of balance to prevent falls? Age Ageing. 2006;35(Suppl 2):ii7–ii11. doi:10.1093/ageing/afl077

work page doi:10.1093/ageing/afl077 2006
[4]

Free-living gait characteristics in ageing and Parkinson’s disease: impact of environment and ambulatory bout length

Del Din S, Godfrey A, Galna B, Lord S, Rochester L. Free-living gait characteristics in ageing and Parkinson’s disease: impact of environment and ambulatory bout length. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2016;13:46. doi:10.1186/s12984-016-0154-5

work page doi:10.1186/s12984-016-0154-5 2016
[5]

Gait dynamics in Parkinson’s disease: common and distinct behavior among stride length, gait variability, and fractal-like scaling

Hausdorff JM. Gait dynamics in Parkinson’s disease: common and distinct behavior among stride length, gait variability, and fractal-like scaling. Chaos. 2009;19(2):026113. doi:10.1063/1.3147408

work page doi:10.1063/1.3147408 2009
[6]

The bliss of motor abundance

Latash ML. The bliss of motor abundance. Exp Brain Res. 2012;217(1):1–5. doi:10.1007/s00221- 012-3000-4

work page doi:10.1007/s00221- 2012
[7]

Dynamic Patterns: The Self-Organization of Brain and Behavior

Kelso JAS. Dynamic Patterns: The Self-Organization of Brain and Behavior. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press; 1995. doi:10.7551/mitpress/2411.001.0001

work page doi:10.7551/mitpress/2411.001.0001 1995
[8]

Constraints on the development of coordination

Newell KM. Constraints on the development of coordination. In: Wade MG, Whiting HTA, editors. Motor Development in Children: Aspects of Coordination and Control. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff

work page
[9]

Coordination

Turvey MT. Coordination. Am Psychol. 1990;45(8):938–953. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.45.8.938

work page doi:10.1037/0003-066x.45.8.938 1990
[10]

Representation learning: a review and new perspectives

Bengio Y , Courville A, Vincent P. Representation learning: a review and new perspectives. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell. 2013;35(8):1798–1828. doi:10.1109/TPAMI.2013.50

work page doi:10.1109/tpami.2013.50 2013
[11]

A path towards autonomous machine intelligence

LeCun Y . A path towards autonomous machine intelligence. OpenReview. 2022. Available from: https://openreview.net/forum?id=BZ5a1r-kVsf

work page 2022
[12]

Movement disorders in people with Parkinson disease: a model for physical therapy

Morris ME. Movement disorders in people with Parkinson disease: a model for physical therapy. Phys Ther. 2000;80(6):578–597. doi:10.1093/ptj/80.6.578

work page doi:10.1093/ptj/80.6.578 2000
[13]

Gait impairments in Parkinson’s disease

Mirelman A, Bonato P, Camicioli R, Ellis TD, Giladi N, Hamilton JL, et al. Gait impairments in Parkinson’s disease. Lancet Neurol. 2019;18(7):697–708. doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(19)30044-4

work page doi:10.1016/s1474-4422(19)30044-4 2019
[14]

Single-case experimental designs: a systematic review of published research and current standards

Smith JD. Single-case experimental designs: a systematic review of published research and current standards. Psychol Methods. 2012;17(4):510–550. doi:10.1037/a0029312

work page doi:10.1037/a0029312 2012
[15]

Single-Case Research Designs: Methods for Clinical and Applied Settings

Kazdin AE. Single-Case Research Designs: Methods for Clinical and Applied Settings. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2011

work page 2011
[16]

Effectiveness of a structured sophrology program on mental health symptoms

van Rangelrooij F, Solans-Buxeda A, Fernandez-Garcia M, Caycedo C, Selvam R, Bulbena A. Effectiveness of a structured sophrology program on mental health symptoms. Actas Esp Psiquiatr. 2020;48(1):16–27

work page 2020
[17]

Body awareness: construct and self-report measures

Mehling WE, Gopisetty V , Daubenmier J, Price CJ, Hecht FM, Stewart A. Body awareness: construct and self-report measures. PLoS One. 2009;4(5):e5614. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005614. 15

work page doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005614 2009
[18]

Movement-based embodied contemplative practices: definitions and paradigms

Schmalzl L, Crane-Godreau MA, Payne P. Movement-based embodied contemplative practices: definitions and paradigms. Front Hum Neurosci. 2014;8:205. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2014.00205

work page doi:10.3389/fnhum.2014.00205 2014
[19]

Dental occlusion, body posture and temporomandibular disorders: where we are now and where we are heading for

Manfredini D, Castroflorio T, Perinetti G, Guarda-Nardini L. Dental occlusion, body posture and temporomandibular disorders: where we are now and where we are heading for. J Oral Rehabil. 2012;39(6):463–471. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2842.2012.02291.x

work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2842.2012.02291.x 2012
[20]

Dental occlusion and body posture: no detectable correlation

Perinetti G. Dental occlusion and body posture: no detectable correlation. Gait Posture. 2006;24(2):165–168. doi:10.1016/j.gaitpost.2005.08.004

work page doi:10.1016/j.gaitpost.2005.08.004 2006
[21]

Occlusion and posture: myth or reality? J Oral Rehabil

Michelotti A, Farella M. Occlusion and posture: myth or reality? J Oral Rehabil. 2010;37(5):317–

work page 2010
[22]

doi:10.1111/j.1365-2842.2010.02072.x

work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2842.2010.02072.x 2010
[23]

Unilateral trigeminal anaesthesia modifies postural control in human subjects

Gangloff P, Perrin PP. Unilateral trigeminal anaesthesia modifies postural control in human subjects. Neurosci Lett. 2002;330(2):179–182. doi:10.1016/S0304-3940(02)00779-6

work page doi:10.1016/s0304-3940(02)00779-6 2002
[24]

Dental occlusion and postural control in adults

Tardieu C, Dumitrescu M, Giraudeau A, Blanc JL, Cheynet F, Borel L. Dental occlusion and postural control in adults. Neurosci Lett. 2009;450(2):221–224. doi:10.1016/j.neulet.2008.12.005

work page doi:10.1016/j.neulet.2008.12.005 2009
[25]

A short latency vestibulomasseteric reflex evoked by electrical vestibular stimulation in healthy humans

Deriu F, Tolu E, Rothwell JC. A short latency vestibulomasseteric reflex evoked by electrical vestibular stimulation in healthy humans. J Physiol. 2003;553(Pt 1):267–279. doi:10.1113/jphysiol.2003.047274

work page doi:10.1113/jphysiol.2003.047274 2003
[26]

Test-retest reliability of gait parameters measured with instrumented insoles in people with Parkinson’s disease

Mostovoy A, Jacobs D, Farid L, Dhellin P, Baille G. Test-retest reliability of gait parameters measured with instrumented insoles in people with Parkinson’s disease. PLOS Digit Health. 2023;2(11):e0000262. doi:10.1371/journal.pdig.0000262

work page doi:10.1371/journal.pdig.0000262 2023
[27]

Performance of instrumented insoles for gait analysis

Martin E, Leboeuf F, Pradon D. Performance of instrumented insoles for gait analysis. Sensors (Basel). 2024;24(18):6043. doi:10.3390/s24186043

work page doi:10.3390/s24186043 2024
[28]

Principal component analysis: a review and recent developments

Jolliffe IT, Cadima J. Principal component analysis: a review and recent developments. Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci. 2016;374(2065):20150202. doi:10.1098/rsta.2015.0202. 16

work page doi:10.1098/rsta.2015.0202 2016