Influence of a concurrent cognitive task on foot pedal reaction time following traumatic, unilateral transtibial amputation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the influence of a secondary task on foot pedal reaction time, movement time and total response time in patients with transtibial amputation. DESIGN: Controlled trial without randomization. SUBJECTS: Ten patients with transtibial amputation and 13 age-matched controls. METHODS: Foot pedal reaction time and movement time were measured for both legs under simple and dual-task conditions. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the influence of a secondary task on foot pedal reaction time, movement time and total response time in patients with transtibial amputation. DESIGN: Controlled trial without randomization. SUBJECTS: Ten patients with transtibial amputation and 13 age-matched controls. METHODS: Foot pedal reaction time and movement time were measured for both legs under simple and dual-task conditions. RESULTS: While mean simple reaction time was similar for both groups (258 (standard deviation (SD) 53) vs 239 (SD 34) ms), a group by reaction time condition interaction (p < 0.05)identified a disproportionately greater mean dual-task effect among patients with transtibial amputation (432 (SD 109)vs 317 (SD 63) ms), apparently affecting the prosthetic and intact legs equally (426 (SD 110) vs 438 (SD 107) ms). Among patients with transtibial amputation faster movement time was achieved with the intact leg (185 (SD 61) vs 232 (SD 58)ms, p < 0.0001). Compared with controls, patients with transtibialamputation demonstrated impaired mean movement time (142 (SD 37) vs 208 (SD 64) ms, p < 0.001) and total response time (420 (SD 80) vs 552 (SD 151) ms, p < 0.001) regard less of reaction time condition. CONCLUSION: This study appears to have identified a functional manifestation of central reorganization following patients with transtibial amputation, affecting the prosthetic and intact lower limbs equally.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".