Sensory Interactions for Head and Trunk Control in Space in Young and Older Adults During Normal and Narrow-Base Walking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fifteen young (20-30 years old) and 15 older (>65 years old) healthy participants were recruited to investigate age-related differences in head and trunk control under suboptimal vestibular conditions (galvanic vestibular stimulation, or GVS) and vision conditions during normal and narrow-based walking. Head-roll velocity decreased in the blurred-vision condition and marginally increased with GVS in older but not in young participants. Head pitch increased, whereas head-roll velocity decreased in narrow-base walking. Trunk pitch, trunk-pitch velocity, and gait speed increased with GVS, whereas trunk-pitch velocity and gait speed decreased in narrow-base walking. Marginally increased head-roll velocity in the older participants possibly suggests decreased integrative ability of the central nervous system in elderly people. The changes in head control during narrow-base walking may be an attempt to simplify the interpretation of the vestibular signal and increase otolith sensitivity. The complexity of controlling the trunk in the mediolateral direction was suggested by different strategies used for trunk control in different conditions.
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".