MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2068588248 · doi:10.1080/00222895.2014.931272

Simulated Visual Field Loss Does Not Alter Turning Coordination in Healthy Young Adults

2014· article· en· W2068588248 on OpenAlex
Nicholas G. Murray, Marlina Ponce de Leon, V. N. Pradeep Ambati, Fabricio Saucedo, E. C. Kennedy, Rebecca J. Reed-Jones

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Motor Behavior · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Prince Edward Island
FundersUniversity of Texas at El Paso
KeywordsVisual fieldFlexibility (engineering)Physical medicine and rehabilitationPsychologyVisual impairmentYoung adultMotor controlAudiologyMotor coordinationPeripheralDevelopmental psychologyNeuroscienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Turning, while walking, is an important component of adaptive locomotion. Current hypotheses regarding the motor control of body segment coordination during turning suggest heavy influence of visual information. The authors aimed to examine whether visual field impairment (central loss or peripheral loss) affects body segment coordination during walking turns in healthy young adults. No significant differences in the onset time of segments or intersegment coordination were observed because of visual field occlusion. These results suggest that healthy young adults can use visual information obtained from central and peripheral visual fields interchangeably, pointing to flexibility of visuomotor control in healthy young adults. Further study in populations with chronic visual impairment and those with turning difficulties are warranted.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.075
Threshold uncertainty score0.431

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.359 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it