MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2071716318 · doi:10.1167/11.12.10

Use of monocular and binocular visual cues for postural control in children

2011· article· en· W2071716318 on OpenAlexfundno aff
José Ângelo Barela, Marcos Sanches, Arminda Lopes, Milena Razuk, Renato Moraes

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAGE-WELL
KeywordsMonocularMonocular visionBinocular visionPsychologySensory cueDepth perceptionPhysical medicine and rehabilitationAudiologyComputer visionCognitive psychologyMedicinePerceptionComputer scienceNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of the present study was to examine how children's postural control is affected by different visual cues. Sixteen children, ages 8 and 12 years, and eight adults participated in the study. Each was asked to stand upright inside a moving room, which oscillated at 0.2 Hz, while facing the frontal wall at two distances: 75 and 150 cm, under monocular and binocular vision conditions. Vision manipulation induced corresponding body sway in all participants, but vision effect was the smallest in the monocular vision condition, at the greater distance (150 cm) from the front wall. More importantly, however, the influence of visual manipulation on body sway was age-dependent, with the younger children showing less visually induced body sway than the older children and adults. This aging effect was more dramatic in the monocular vision condition. These results suggest that development of the visual system is not fully completed until the age of 12 years and that eye movement and binocular vision might play an important role in how visual cues are coupled to body sway.

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 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 score0.090
Threshold uncertainty score0.240

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.338 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations14
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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