Sensory-Specific Balance Training in Older Adults: Effect on Proprioceptive Reintegration and Cognitive Demands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Age-related changes in the ability to adjust to alterations in sensory information contribute to impaired postural stability. The purpose of this randomized controlled trial was to investigate the effect of sensory-specific balance training on proprioceptive reintegration. SUBJECTS: The subjects of this study were 36 older participants who were healthy. METHODS: Participants were randomly assigned to a balance exercise group (n=17) or a falls prevention education group (n=19). The primary outcome measure was the center-of-pressure (COP) velocity change score. This score represented the difference between COP velocity over 45 seconds of quiet standing and each of six 5-second intervals following proprioceptive perturbation through vibration with or without a secondary cognitive task. Clinical outcome measures included the Fullerton Advanced Balance (FAB) Scale and the Activities-specific Balance Confidence (ABC) Scale. Assessments were conducted at baseline, postintervention, and at an 8-week follow-up. RESULTS: Following the exercise intervention, there was less destabilization within the first 5 seconds following vibration with or without a secondary task than there was at baseline or in the falls prevention education group. These training effects were not maintained at the 8-week follow-up. Postintervention improvements also were seen on the FAB Scale and were maintained at follow-up. No changes in ABC Scale scores were identified in the balance exercise group, but ABC Scale scores indicated reduced balance confidence in the falls prevention education group postintervention. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: The results of this study support short-term enhanced postural responses to proprioceptive reintegration following a sensory-specific balance exercise program.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".