Do Aging and Dual-Tasking Impair the Capacity to Store and Retrieve Visuospatial Information Needed to Guide Perturbation-Evoked Reach-To-Grasp Reactions?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A recent study involving young adults showed that rapid perturbation-evoked reach-to-grasp balance-recovery reactions can be guided successfully with visuospatial-information (VSI) retained in memory despite: 1) a reduction in endpoint accuracy due to recall-delay (time between visual occlusion and perturbation-onset, PO) and 2) slowing of the reaction when performing a concurrent cognitive task during the recall-delay interval. The present study aimed to determine whether this capacity is compromised by effects of aging. Ten healthy older adults were tested with the previous protocol and compared with the previously-tested young adults. Reactions to recover balance by grasping a small handhold were evoked by unpredictable antero-posterior platform-translation (barriers deterred stepping reactions), while using liquid-crystal goggles to occlude vision post-PO and for varying recall-delay times (0-10 s) prior to PO (the handhold was moved unpredictably to one of four locations 2 s prior to vision-occlusion). Subjects also performed a spatial- or non-spatial-memory cognitive task during the delay-time in a subset of trials. Results showed that older adults had slower reactions than the young across all experimental conditions. Both age groups showed similar reduction in medio-lateral end-point accuracy when recall-delay was longest (10 s), but differed in the effect of recall delay on vertical hand elevation. For both age groups, engaging in either the non-spatial or spatial-memory task had similar (slowing) effects on the arm reactions; however, the older adults also showed a dual-task interference effect (poorer cognitive-task performance) that was specific to the spatial-memory task. This provides new evidence that spatial working memory plays a role in the control of perturbation-evoked balance-recovery reactions. The delays in completing the reaction that occurred when performing either cognitive task suggest that such dual-task situations in daily life could increase risk of falling in seniors, particularly when combined with the general age-related slowing that was observed across all experimental 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) | 0.001 | 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".