MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2035614197 · doi:10.1080/00222895.2010.530307

Attentional Demands Associated With Obstacle Crossing While Carrying a Load

2011· article· en· W2035614197 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Motor Behavior · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Canadian institutionsToronto Rehabilitation InstituteYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObstacleCognitive loadCognitionPsychologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationAudiologyMedicineNeuroscienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The extent to which different locomotor tasks require cognitive control is not well characterized. In this article, the authors consider the potential increase in attentional demands associated with carrying an anterior load while clearing an obstacle. Nine healthy male volunteers participated in 80 walking trials, 20 in each of 4 conditions: 1 no load condition (NL) and 3 carrying conditions (2KG, 5KG, and 10KG). Of the 20 trials in each condition, 12 included a probe reaction time (PRT) test during lead limb obstacle crossing, which was used to measure cognitive load. A load-dependent increase in PRT was observed, with PRT in the 2KG condition being significantly greater than in the NL condition, and PRT in the 5KG and 10KG conditions being significantly greater than in the 2KG condition. These results suggested that cognitive load was increased when: (a) the obstacle was occluded from vision by the load, and (b) the magnitude of load was increased.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.461

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.273 · 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