Are Older Adults' Actions Affected by Their Perceptions When Walking Through Apertures?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Perception and action are coupled such that actions within an environment change the perceptions of the objects within the environment (Gibson, 1979). Likewise changes to an individual's action capabilities (balance) affect his or her perceptions (Geuss & Stefanucci, 2010). The objective of the current study was to determine if previously observed age-related differences in actions (Hackney & Cinelli, 2010) were due to differences in perception. Our hypothesis was that age-related differences in balance stability lead to differences in perception that in turn produce differences in actions. Young (n = 10) and older adults (n = 6) performed 3 blocks of trials (static perceptions, dynamic perceptions, & action). The first two blocks were counter-balanced and required the participants to give a yes/no response as to whether they could pass through an aperture (0.9–1.8 times shoulder width) without rotating their shoulders. Both perceptual judgements were made 5 m from the aperture either standing or approaching the mark from 9 m away respectively. The action block required participants to walked down the 9 m path at a self-selected pace and pass through the aperture (1–1.8× SW) using a suitable method. Action results revealed that older adults begin to rotate shoulders at larger apertures than young adults (∼1.6 and ∼1.4× SW respectively, p < 0.05). Perception results revealed that static perceptions were not different between young and older adults, however, older adults had more conservative dynamic perceptions (p < 0.05). Therefore, it is possible that the decreased dynamic stability of older adult's leads to changes in dynamic perception causing more cautious actions.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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 teacher head, 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".