The effects of rotational platform training on balance and ADLs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patients with vestibular dysfunction complain of postural instability and disorientation long after the central compensation is thought to be complete. Previously it has been demonstrated that patients with unilateral vestibular loss who orient more to vertical have better perceived functional status. We proposed that performing balance training with surface perturbations at velocities that target the vestibular system would lead to increased reliance on vestibular information, and therefore improve function. The purpose of this study was to determine whether patients who train using repetitive platform perturbations at these vestibular dependent velocities demonstrate improved postural stability and greater functional abilities than patients who perform traditional balance therapy. Twelve subjects with chronic vestibular and balance dysfunction (age 58 ± 15 years; 3 males, 8 females) and 4 healthy control subjects (age 62 ± 23 years; 4 females) participated. Patients were randomized into 3 groups: clinical balance training (CBT n=3) and training with ramp platform perturbations (4 deg amplitude) either at vestibular (1, 2, 4 deg/sec; VESTIB n=6) or at non-vestibular velocities (0.5, 8, 16 deg/sec; Non-VESTIB n=3). The healthy control subjects completed training at vestibular velocities. Subjects' kinematic and kinetic responses to ramp rotational platform perturbations (0.5, 1, 2, 4, 8, 16 deg/sec at 6 deg amplitude), and scores on the Activities-specific Balance Confidence Scale (ABC), Dizziness Handicap Inventory (DHI), Vestibular Activities of Daily Living Scale (VADL) and Functional Gait Assessment (FGA) were compared before and after the 2 week, 3x/week training sessions. Control subjects demonstrated minimal change in orientation to vertical during platform rotations following training. The VESTIB group demonstrated greater improvements in orientation to vertical during ramp perturbations following training than the Non-VESTIB or CBT groups. Both the CBT and VESTIB groups demonstrated improvements on a composite clinical score incorporating the ABC, DHI, VADL, and FGA following training whereas the Non-VESTIB group did not demonstrate improvement. These preliminary results indicate that training using platform rotations may be an effective intervention for improving postural control following vestibular loss. Further research is needed to explore the efficacy of incorporating rotational platform training with clinical balance training.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".