Interaction between delayed visual feedback and secondary cognitive tasks on postural control in older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Age-related decline in control mechanisms and sensory information detection adversely affect balance in older adults. This effect is particularly pronounced during the performance of a concurrent cognitive task. The purpose of this experiment was to determine the effects of cognitive load and the temporal salience of delayed visual feedback (DVF) on the stability of upright stance in older individuals. Fifteen healthy young and fifteen healthy older subjects participated. Participants were required to position their centre of pressure (COP) as close to a fixed-target as possible on an LCD monitor. In a set of experimental conditions the delay with which the visual feedback was made available to the participants was systematically varied. The cognitive dual-task involved the performance of a simple serial arithmetic operation. Visual feedback conditions consisted of eyes-open (no COP feedback) and DVF conditions (0, 300, 600, 900 ms). While sway variability increased with visual delay in both groups, older participants exhibited greater sway variability across all DVF conditions. Young adults showed a reduction in AP COP variability in the dual DVF-cognitive task performance conditions Older adults, in contrast, did not benefit from cognitive dual-task performance. We argue that this reflects insufficient or inappropriate modulation of attention resulting in compromised balance control in older individuals.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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".