Stroke Affects the Coordination of Gaze and Posture During Preplanned Turns While Walking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In healthy subjects, the act of walking and turning is accomplished by a sequential horizontal reorientation of gaze, head, and body toward the direction of the turn. Subjects with stroke, however, have difficulty altering their walking direction and present with loss of balance when performing a head turn or whole body rotation. OBJECTIVE: To study, in a pilot case study, the spatial and temporal coordination of gaze and posture during preplanned turns executed while walking in severely disabled and mildly disabled subjects with stroke as compared to a healthy control walking at slow speed. METHODS: Horizontal plane orientations of gaze, head, thorax, pelvis, and feet as well as the body's center of mass (CoM) trajectory were analyzed as subjects were walking straight or executing a 90-deg turn. RESULTS: Subjects with stroke revealed altered orientation and sequencing of gaze body segments. These alterations were more pronounced in the most severely disabled subject with stroke, especially when turning to the nonparetic side as compared to the paretic side. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest an altered coordination of gaze and posture during steering of locomotion in subjects with stroke. This altered coordination is likely due to a complex interaction of motor, sensory, and biomechanical factors that may explain the poor balance and poor control of heading direction during walking and turning in stroke.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".