MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2003018060 · doi:10.1167/12.9.184

Avoiding Two Vertical Obstacles: An Age-Related Comparison

2012· article· en· W2003018060 on OpenAlexaff
Amy Hackney, Matteo Cinelli

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMotor Control and Adaptation
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAction (physics)Aperture (computer memory)Rotation (mathematics)Path (computing)Physical medicine and rehabilitationSpace (punctuation)Position (finance)PsychologyOrthodonticsGeodesyMathematicsDemographyDevelopmental psychologyPhysicsMedicineGeometryGeologyComputer scienceAcoustics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When individuals must pass through an aperture, young adults (YA) initiate a shoulder rotation at smaller relative aperture widths1 (i.e. Critical Point) than older adults (OA)2,3. It is unknown whether individuals initiate changes to actions at similar relative aperture widths between obstacles in unconfined space as in a confined aperture-crossing. The current study aimed to determine the Critical width at which individuals change action strategies and if age-related differences exist when avoiding obstacles in unconfined space. Young (N=12) and older adults (N=12) were instructed to walk a 9m path toward a goal and avoid two poles placed 5m along the path on either side of the midline (0.6-1.8x shoulder width). Results showed that the Critical width of YA was 1.4x shoulder width while OA was 1.6. In confined and unconfined space the passability of apertures remains similar, however the action strategy differs. Rather than change shoulder position, a change in travel path occurs. When changes in travel path were made, YA deviated from straight walking further from the obstacles than OA (2.68m versus 1.78m, p<0.001). At the time-of-crossing, OA displayed a larger lateral clearance than YA (0.70m versus 0.31m, p<0.001). This suggest that OA require more time to process information and make appropriate action changes but their subsequent strategies are more cautious. Overall, this study confirms the persistence of age-related differences in action strategies and that Critical width governs the initiation of action changes in unconfined space. However, the strategy used is task-specific. 1.Warren&Whang (1987).Visual guidance of walking through apertures:Body-scaled information for affordances. J.Experimental Psychology,13:371-83. 2.Wilmut&Barnett (2010).Locomotor adjustments when navigating through apertures. Human Movement Science,29:289-98. 3.Hackney&Cinell (2011).Action strategies of older adults when walking through apertures.Gait and Posture,33[4]:733-36. Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2012

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.061
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.290 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Vision→Same topicMotor Control and Adaptation→French-language works237,207→