Effect of Competing Attentional Demands on Perturbation-Evoked Stepping Reactions and Associated Gaze Behavior in Young and Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Rapid stepping reactions are a prevalent response to sudden loss of balance and are thought to play a crucial role in preventing falls. Previous dual-task studies, involving concurrent performance of step reactions and a visuomotor tracking task, indicated that online visual attention was not required to guide the step, even when nearby objects increased demands for accurate foot movement. However, the planning and execution of the step apparently required attentional resources initially allotted to the tracking task. Reallocation of these resources ("attention switching") was delayed in older adults. The present study examined the influence of the competition for attentional resources by comparing trials performed with and without the concurrent task. METHODS: Unpredictable platform perturbations were used to evoke rapid forward stepping reactions in healthy young and older adults. Challenging obstacles and/or step targets increased demands for accurate foot motion in some trials. A concurrent tracking task was performed in half of the trials. RESULTS: Although participants looked down more frequently in the absence of the tracking task, the ability to clear the obstacle or land on the step target and other spatiotemporal features of the stepping reactions were largely unaffected. There was, however, one notable exception: In older adults, the duration and amplitude of the "anticipatory postural adjustment" that preceded foot lift were reduced in tracking trials, resulting in increased lateral center-of-mass motion. CONCLUSION: Impaired attention switching apparently compromised the control of lateral stability during stepping reactions in older adults, and may be an important contributor to increased risk of falling.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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".