Reflex Interactions during Whole Head-and-Body Tilts are Modified by Age in Humans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We have demonstrated that lower limb extensor muscle response to tibial nerve stimulation is significantly facilitated by whole head-and-body tilt in the forward direction. Our aim was to examine whether this reflex interaction is influenced by age. Reflexes were elicited in lower limb muscles by electrical stimulation (ES) of the right tibial nerve. We compared reflexes during supported stance (ESalone) and sudden forward tilting of the whole head-and-body (Tilt+ES) between 10 healthy subjects aged 66 +/- 4 years and 13 subjects aged 27 +/- 3 years. In young subjects the area of response evoked in the ipsilateral vastus lateralis (iVL) was significantly increased by 74% during Tilt+ES as compared with ESalone (p < 0.05). Moreover, the latency of contralateral VL and soleus muscle responses (cVL and/or cSO) was significantly shorter by 61 ms during Tilt+ES than ESalone (p < 0.01). In contrast, older subjects showed no significant increase in the excitability of iVL muscle response and cVL and/or cSO muscle responses during Tilt+ES as compared with ESalone, despite the application of similar intensity of ES and head acceleration as in young subjects. Our findings showed that the interaction between ES-evoked and tilt-evoked responses in lower limb extensor muscles is modified with age, which suggests modifications of sensorimotor integration involved in balance control.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".