Change-in-support reactions for balance recovery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The authors provide an overview of their own recent research in "change-in-support" reactions covering control mechanisms, age-related changes, and implications for fall prevention. Compensatory stepping and grasping are critical reactions for preventing falls. These reactions are much more rapid than volitional limb movements and can be very effective in decelerating the center of mass (COM) motion induced by sudden unpredictable perturbation, despite environmental constraints on limb trajectory and additional demands imposed by ongoing physical or cognitive activity. However, even healthy older adults experience difficulty in controlling these reactions, and they appear to have particular problems in controlling lateral stability and lateral leg movement. These problems may be particularly relevant to the problem of hip fractures, which are most likely to occur as a result of a lateral fall. Older adults also appear to be more reliant on grasping reactions than young adults, but they are less able to execute these reactions rapidly. From a clinical perspective, it is important to assess compensatory stepping and grasping. Such tests could be used as a screening tool to identify high-risk individuals and could also serve to pinpoint specific control problems to target for balance training or other intervention. More effective use of stepping and grasping reactions can be promoted through improved design of footwear, mobility aids, handrails, and grab-bars.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".