Comparison of Static Balance and the Role of Vision in Elite Athletes
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When prescribing balance exercises to athletes in different sports, it may be important to recognize performance variations. Indeed, how athletes from different sports perform on balance tests is not well understood. The goal of the present study was to compare static balance and the role of vision among elite sprinters, jumpers and rugby players. The modified clinical test of sensory interaction on balance (mCTSIB) was used to assess the velocity of the center-of-pressure (CoP) on a force platform during a 30 s bipedal quiet standing posture in 4 conditions: firm surface with opened and closed eyes, foam surface with opened and closed eyes. Three-factor ANOVA indicated a significant main effect for groups (F=21.69, df=2, p<0.001, η(2) = 0.34). Significant main effect of vision (F=43.20, df=1, p<0.001, η(2) = 0.34) and surface (F=193.41, df=1, p<0.001, η(2) = 0.70) as well as an interaction between vision (eyes open, eyes closed) and surface (firm and foam) (F=21.79, df=1, p=0.001) were reported in all groups. The subsequent Bonferroni-Dunn post hoc test indicated that rugby players displayed better static balance than sprinters and jumpers (p=0.001). The comparison of sprinters and jumpers did not reveal significant differences (p>0.05). The nature of the sport practiced and the absence of visual control are linked to modify static balance in elite athletes. Coaches and strength and conditioning professionals are recommended to use a variety of exercises to improve balance, including both exercises with opened and closed eyes on progressively challenging surfaces in order to make decisions about tasks and sensory availability during assessment and 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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it