The Effect of Two Types of Virtual Reality on Voluntary Center of Pressure Displacement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Voluntary movements result in internal perturbations of balance and equilibrium. One variable regulated during movement is the position of the center of pressure (COP). Sensory information from the visual, vestibular and somatosensory systems is used in establishing relevant frames of reference for postural control. In this study, we were interested in determining whether different limitations of COP movement occur when different approaches to delivering virtual environments are used and when visual information incoherent with vestibular and somatosensory information is provided. Eighteen healthy adults completed voluntary lateral reaches under three conditions: continuous lateral reach (CLR), flatscreen virtual reality (FS), and head-mounted display virtual reality (HMD). Reaching behavior was indexed by force plate measures of maximum anterior-posterior and lateral displacement of the COP. The COP movement decreased in the lateral direction in the HMD condition relative to the FS. The maximum range of COP movement in the anterior-posterior direction increased as a function of reaching task with HMD realizing the greatest amount of movement. The lack of an exocentric frame of reference in HMD coherent with information from other sensory systems results in limiting COP movement within the base of support (BOS) in order to decrease the challenge to the postural control system.
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 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".