MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Cognitive demands of executing postural reactions: does aging impede attention switching?

2001· article· en· W2018246159 on OpenAlexaff
Brian E. Maki, Aleksandra Zecevic, Hamid Bateni, Naomi Kirshenbaum, William E. McIlroy

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuroreport · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyCognitionPhysical medicine and rehabilitationAudiologyAnkleTask (project management)NeuroscienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A new dual-task paradigm was used to investigate age-related differences in attentional dynamics during rapid balancing reactions evoked by small, unpredictable antero-posterior platform movements. The perturbations were delivered while subjects performed a continuous visuo-motor pursuit-tracking task. Onset of significant deviation in tracking was inferred to indicate switching of attentional resources between tracking and balancing tasks. Although tracking deviation was equally likely to occur subsequent to postural perturbation in healthy young and older adults, deviation onset was delayed, on average, by 67% (123 ms) in the older subjects. Delay in onset of tracking deviation correlated with subsequent delay in generating the peak stabilizing postural response at the ankle. These results suggest that impaired attentional dynamics may exacerbate postural instability in older adults.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.349 · 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

Citations123
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuroreportSame topicBalance, Gait, and Falls PreventionFrench-language works237,207