MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2071169436 · doi:10.1080/00222895.2012.702142

Changes in Spinal Excitability During Dual Task Performance

2012· article· en· W2071169436 on OpenAlexaff
Tyler B. Weaver, Matthew R. Janzen, Allan L. Adkin, Craig D. Tokuno

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Motor Behavior · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTask (project management)Dual (grammatical number)NeurosciencePsychologyCognitive psychologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationCommunicationMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The authors investigated how the nervous system responds to dual task performance. Because dual tasking is associated with greater postural challenges, it was hypothesized that spinal excitability would be reduced when simultaneously performing 2 tasks. For this experiment, participants maintained a lying or standing posture with or without performing a concurrent cognitive task (i.e., reacting to an auditory tone). Spinal excitability was assessed by eliciting the soleus Hoffmann reflex (H-reflex). Results indicated that the H-reflex was 6.4 ± 2.3% smaller (p = .011) when dual compared to single tasking. The reduced H-reflex amplitude, indicating a depressed spinal excitability, when dual tasking is suggested to reflect a neural strategy that individuals adopt to maintain postural stability when cognitive resources are divided between 2 concurrent tasks.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.329 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Motor BehaviorSame topicBalance, Gait, and Falls PreventionFrench-language works237,207