Is perception of vertical impaired in individuals with chronic stroke with a history of ‘pushing’?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Post-stroke 'pushing' behaviour appears to be caused by impaired perception of vertical in the roll plane. While pushing behaviour typically resolves with stroke recovery, it is not known if misperception of vertical persists. The purpose of this study was to determine if perception of vertical is impaired amongst stroke survivors with a history of pushing behaviour. Fourteen individuals with chronic stroke (7 with history of pushing) and 10 age-matched healthy controls participated. Participants sat upright on a chair surrounded by a curved projection screen in a laboratory mounted on a motion base. Subjective visual vertical (SVV) was assessed using a 30 trial, forced-choice protocol. For each trial participants viewed a line projected on the screen and indicated if the line was tilted to the right or the left. For the subjective postural vertical (SPV), participants wore a blindfold and the motion base was tilted to the left or right by 10-20°. Participants were asked to adjust the angular movements of the motion base until they felt upright. SPV was not different between groups. SVV was significantly more biased towards the contralesional side for participants with history of pushing (-3.6 ± 4.1°) than those without (-0.1 ± 1.4°). Two individuals with history of pushing had SVV or SPV outside the maximum for healthy controls. Impaired vertical perception may persist in some individuals with prior post-stroke pushing, despite resolution of pushing behaviours, which could have consequences for functional mobility and falls.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".