Postural, physiological and psychological reactions to challenging balance: does age make a difference?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine if increases in balance challenge influenced concomitant change in self-efficacy, state anxiety and physiological arousal, and if these changes were correlated with changes in standing balance in young and older adults. DESIGN: A 2 x 2 between- (age) by within-subject (balance challenge) factorial design. SETTING: quiet standing trials were performed on low and high support-surface heights in a research laboratory. SUBJECTS: 14 Young (22-31 years) and 14 older (60-83 years) adults with no known neurological or balance disorders, or falls within the last year. METHODS: Forceplate-derived measures of standing balance, measures of state anxiety, blood pressure and task-specific balance and coping self-efficacy. RESULTS: Independent of age, mean position, amplitude and frequency of centre of pressure displacements were significantly influenced by surface height, as were anxiety and efficacy. Decreased amplitude and increased frequency changes observed in both age groups with increased balance challenge were consistent with a stiffening strategy. Blood pressure, state anxiety and self-efficacy were correlated with different postural control changes in young and older adults. CONCLUSIONS: Older adults used the same stiffening strategy as young adults to cope with the increased anxiety and lowered confidence associated with standing on a high surface. Converging evidence indicates that physiological status, state anxiety and balance efficacy are related to specific changes in postural performance with increased balance challenge. Findings highlight the potential additive effects of psychological and physiological factors on clinical balance performance and the need to consider comprehensive rehabilitation and prevention techniques that concern psychological and physiological contributions to balance deficits.
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 | 0.001 | 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".