Visual Reliance for Balance Control in Older Adults Persists When Visual Information Is Disrupted by Artificial Feedback Delays
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sensory information from our eyes, skin and muscles helps guide and correct balance. Less appreciated, however, is that delays in the transmission of sensory information between our eyes, limbs and central nervous system can exceed several 10s of milliseconds. Investigating how these time-delayed sensory signals influence balance control is central to understanding the postural system. Here, we investigate how delayed visual feedback and cognitive performance influence postural control in healthy young and older adults. The task required that participants position their center of pressure (COP) in a fixed target as accurately as possible without visual feedback about their COP location (eyes-open balance), or with artificial time delays imposed on visual COP feedback. On selected trials, the participants also performed a silent arithmetic task (cognitive dual task). We separated COP time series into distinct frequency components using low and high-pass filtering routines. Visual feedback delays affected low frequency postural corrections in young and older adults, with larger increases in postural sway noted for the group of older adults. In comparison, cognitive performance reduced the variability of rapid center of pressure displacements in young adults, but did not alter postural sway in the group of older adults. Our results demonstrate that older adults prioritize vision to control posture. This visual reliance persists even when feedback about the task is delayed by several hundreds of milliseconds.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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".