Visual control of posture as a function of age and cognitive task and its relationship with subjective discomfort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Older observers tend to be more visually dependent for posture control. It has been suggested that cognitive load can produce postural instability. Very little is known on the relationship between the cognitive tasks and postural control when posture is strongly influenced by dynamic visual inputs and whether the resulting postural reactivity relates to subjective discomfort. Methods: We used a Full Immersive Virtual Environment to simulate a virtual floor. The floor oscillated from right to left with a temporal frequency of 0.25Hz and a slope of four degrees. Three cognitive tasks were performed during the visual stimulation, (1) no mental task, (2) mental countdown task with a random starting number and (3) a Brooks's modified task that consisted in memorising series of 6 numbers. Two young and older groups were tested and asked to stand still with feet together and arms crossed. Body Sway Amplitude (BSA) and Velocity Root Mean Square (VRMS) were calculated from the electromagnetic trackers positioned on the head. After each random condition, subjects were asked their Subjective Unit Discomfort (USI) on a scale ranging from 0 to10. Results: Results show clear effects of age for all three dependent variables BSA, VRMS and USI. Cognitive task conditions had stronger effects on subjective discomfort (USI) measures (reducing subjective discomfort) than on the behavioral outcome of the visually induced posture movement (BSA and VRMS). Conclusions: Visual stimulation had a greater visual induced impact for older observers. They were more sensitive while performing the most complex mental tasks (Brooks). It suggests that older subjects are more sensitive to visually induced postural reactivity during complex multitask cognitive conditions. Subjective discomfort decreased significantly as the mental tasks were more complex suggesting that a concurrent mental task can reduce discomfort related to visual-vestibular-proprioceptive conflicts but at the risk of increasing visually-induced postural instability.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".