Attentional Demands Associated With Obstacle Crossing While Carrying a Load
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".