Tai Chi and vestibular rehabilitation effects on gaze and whole-body stability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tai Chi (TC) is a comparatively new intervention for peripheral vestibular hypofunction, which is often treated with vestibular rehabilitation (VR). We compared gaze stability (GZS), whole-body stability (WBS) and footfall stability (FFS) during locomotion among 26 people with vestibulopathy (VSP), randomized into two treatment arms (13 TC and 13 VR). Each intervention program was offered for 10 weeks. GZS improved more for VR than for TC, but WBS (and FFS) improved more for TC than for VR. There was a significant relationship between changes in GZS and WBS for the VR subjects (r=0.60, p=0.01), but not for TC subjects. There was a significant relationship between changes in WBS and FFS for both VR (r=0.65, p <0.01) and TC (r=0.58, p=0.02) groups; the relationship disappeared in the VR but not the TC group when controlling for GZS. These findings suggest that VR and TC both benefit patients with VSP but via differing mechanisms. Moreover, these data are the first to test the assumption that improving gaze control among patients with VSP perforce improves postural stability: it does not. We conclude that GZS is most improved in those who receive VR, but that TC improves WBS and FFS without improving GZS, suggesting patients with VSP can rely on non-gaze related mechanisms to improve postural control.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".