Is the Prioritization of Postural Control Altered in Conditions of Postural Threat in Younger and Older Adults?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. The purpose of this study was to determine if the prioritization of postural control over secondary task performance is altered in younger and older adults under different conditions of postural threat. Methods. Fifteen healthy older adults (mean age = 69.53 +/- 5.78) and 15 younger adults (mean age = 22.00 +/- 2.17) performed Brooks' Spatial Letter Task (BST) while standing in four conditions of postural threat. Galvanic skin conductance (GSC) was collected to measure changes in physiological arousal. BST task duration was used to measure changes in cognitive performance, and center of pressure (COP) area was used to determine changes in postural stability across each of the testing conditions. A prioritization index was calculated based on the relative change in BST and COP across testing conditions. This measure was used to quantify changes in the relationship between postural control and secondary task performance under conditions of postural threat. Results. Measures of GSC increased in younger and older adults in response to conditions of increased postural threat. Prioritization index scores revealed that a greater number of older adults than younger adults prioritized postural control over secondary task performance under conditions of increased postural threat. Conclusions. Environmental contexts that alter postural threat may lead to modifications in the prioritization between postural control and secondary task performance among older adults. This relationship may have implications for postural control under situations that do not afford deterioration in secondary task performance.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".