Driving in a simulator and lower limb movement variability in elderly persons: can we infer something about pedal errors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Driving through an intersection requires observing and monitoring traffic conditions and the driving environment. It also requires, among other things, accurate right foot movements. It is with podal actions on brake and accelerator pedals that the driver controls the speed of the vehicle. Older adults exhibit greater motor variability than young adults [1, 2]. This increased variability may affect the accuracy of right foot movements while driving. It was hypothesized that, when stopping at an intersection, elderly drivers would show podal movements characterized by hesitation when moving from the accelerator to the brake pedal and by less stable temporal and spatial right foot movements than young drivers. Young (aged 21-42 years, n = 15) and older (aged 61-79 years, n = 25) active drivers participated. A driving simulator was used. Before the experimental session, all subjects drove an 8-km practice run to familiarize themselves with the simulator and the general feel of the pedals and steering. For the experimental run, all participants drove through the same 16-km route of a simulated neighbourhood (27 events consisting of crossings with a stop sign or crossing lights). For each event, the linear amplitude and within-subject variability of the right foot was calculated. The young adult generally released their foot from the accelerator pedal and moved toward the brake pedal without any hesitation. Elderly individuals showed more variable right foot movements (from the accelerator pedal to the brake pedal) characterized by the presence of several submovements (beyond small wobbling movements). Older drivers' right foot movements are more variable than that of young drivers. More research is needed to determine if there is a direct relationship between this lower limb movement variability, and serious pedal errors.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".