Gaze and Postural Reorientation in the Control of Locomotor Steering After Stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Steering of locomotion is a complex task involving stabilizing and anticipatory orienting behavior essential for the maintenance of balance and for establishing a stable frame of reference for future motor and sensory events. How these mechanisms are affected by stroke remains unknown. OBJECTIVES: To compare locomotor steering behavior between stroke and healthy individuals and to determine whether steering abilities are influenced by walking speed, turning direction and walking capacity in stroke individuals. METHODS: Gaze and body kinematics were recorded in 8 stroke and 7 healthy individuals while walking and turning in response to a visual cue. Horizontal orientation of gaze, head, thorax, pelvis, and feet with respect to spatial and heading coordinates were examined. RESULTS: Temporal and spatial coordination of gaze and body movements revealed stabilizing and anticipatory orienting mechanisms in the healthy individuals. Changing walking speed affected the onset time but not the sequencing of segment reorientation. In the individuals with stroke, abnormally large and uncoordinated head and gaze motion were observed. The sequence of gaze, head, thorax and pelvis horizontal reorientation also was also disrupted. Alterations in orienting behaviors were more pronounced at the slowest walking speeds and turning to the nonparetic side in 3 of the most severely disabled individuals. CONCLUSION: The results in this convenience sample of slow and faster walkers suggest that stroke alters the stabilizing and orienting behavior during steering of locomotion. Such alterations are not caused by the inherently slow walking speed, but rather by a combination of biomechanical factors and defective sensorimotor integration, including altered vestibulo-ocular reflexes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".