Reproducibility of Distance and Direction Errors Associated with Forward, Backward, and Sideway Walking in the Context of Blind Navigation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ability to navigate without vision towards a previously seen target has been extensively studied, but its reliability over time has yet to be established. Our aims were to determine distance and direction errors made during blind navigation across four different directions involving three different gait patterns (stepping forward, stepping sideway, and stepping backward), and to establish the test-retest reproducibility of these errors. Twenty young healthy adults participated in two testing sessions separated by 7 days. They were shown targets located, respectively, 8 m ahead, 8 m behind, and 8 m to their right and left. With vision occluded by opaque goggles, they walked forward (target ahead), backward (target behind), and sideway (right and left targets) until they perceived to be on the target. Subjects were not provided with feedback about their performance. Walked distance, angular deviation, and body rotation were measured. The mean estimated distance error was similar across the four walking directions and ranged from 16 to 80 cm with respect to the 8 m target. In contrast, direction errors were significantly larger during sideway navigation (walking in the frontal plane: leftward, 10 degrees +/- 15 degrees deviation; rightward, 18 degrees +/- 13 degrees) than during forward and backward navigation (walking in the sagittal plane). In general, distance and direction errors were only moderately reproducible between the two sessions [intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) ranging from 0.682 to 0.705]. Among the four directions, rightward navigation showed the best reproducibility with ICCs ranging from 0.607 to 0.726, and backward navigation had the worst reliability with ICCs ranging from 0.094 to 0.554. These findings indicate that errors associated with blind navigation across different walking directions and involving different gait patterns are only moderately to poorly reproducible on repeated testing, especially for walking backward. The biomechanical constraints and increased cognitive loading imposed by changing the walking pattern to backward stepping may underlie the poor performance in this direction.
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 | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".