Brain Activity during Ankle Proprioceptive Stimulation Predicts Balance Performance in Young and Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Proprioceptive information from the foot/ankle provides important information regarding body sway for balance control, especially in situations where visual information is degraded or absent. Given known increases in catastrophic injury due to falls with older age, understanding the neural basis of proprioceptive processing for balance control is particularly important for older adults. In the present study, we linked neural activity in response to stimulation of key foot proprioceptors (i.e., muscle spindles) with balance ability across the lifespan. Twenty young and 20 older human adults underwent proprioceptive mapping; foot tendon vibration was compared with vibration of a nearby bone in an fMRI environment to determine regions of the brain that were active in response to muscle spindle stimulation. Several body sway metrics were also calculated for the same participants on an eyes-closed balance task. Based on regression analyses, multiple clusters of voxels were identified showing a significant relationship between muscle spindle stimulation-induced neural activity and maximum center of pressure excursion in the anterior-posterior direction. In this case, increased activation was associated with greater balance performance in parietal, frontal, and insular cortical areas, as well as structures within the basal ganglia. These correlated regions were age- and foot-stimulation side-independent and largely localized to right-sided areas of the brain thought to be involved in monitoring stimulus-driven shifts of attention. These findings support the notion that, beyond fundamental peripheral reflex mechanisms, central processing of proprioceptive signals from the foot is critical for 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".