Relationship Between Oscillations About the Vertical Axis and Center of Pressure Displacements in Single and Double Leg Upright Stance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The purposes of this study are to assess the relationship of the center of pressure (CoP) displacement parameters along the mediolateral and anteroposterior axes to whole-body oscillations about the vertical axis during single or double leg upright stance and to determine whether sensory deprivation and stance modify balance stability about the vertical axis and in the horizontal plane. DESIGN: Eleven male adults stood on a force plate during conditions in which stance (single/double) and/or vision (normal/reduced) were modified independently. The dependent variables were CoP range, CoP velocity, and free moment (TZ) range. R-squared coefficients (R) were applied to assess the relationship between CoP and TZ range, whereas multifactor analysis of variances were used to assess the differences among conditions. RESULTS: R between CoP and TZ parameters varied from 0.16 to 0.69 for three of the four conditions, suggesting that different postural mechanisms controlled CoP displacements and body axial rotations. Single leg stance with reduced vision condition revealed a higher R between CoP velocity and TZ range. TZ range was approximately seven times greater when stance was modified to single limb stance, whereas reduced vision had no effect. CONCLUSIONS: Postural control mechanisms seem to be different for the free moment (TZ) than for the CoP displacements.
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) | 0.002 | 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".