Postural control adjustments during progressive inclination of the support surface in children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the most important postural challenges in daily life is to continuously correct the destabilizing torque due to gravity that accelerates the body further away from the upright position. This study examined children's (7.9 years old) (n=7) and adults' (n=10) capacity to generate continuous corrective torque during a progressive perturbation. The experimental task was to maintain an upright quiet standing on a platform that gradually and slowly toes-down tilted to a maximum of 14° without visual cues. The vertical forces applied on the platform and the electromyograms from the tibialis anterior and the gastrocnemius were measured. The results showed that children had a different postural response to the perturbation than adults. When the platform was stationary before the inclination, children shifted their body weight backward whereas adults had a more balanced distribution of their weight. During the inclination, children applied a stronger forward force, suggesting a larger postero-anterior displacement of their body weight. Muscular activities were higher in children for both the tibialis anterior and the gastrocnemius, and their tibialis anterior activation profile was different. In conclusion, this study showed that in children aged from 7 to 10 years old neuromuscular responses were not mature enough to generate continuous postural corrective torque in response to the perturbation.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".