Relationship between the Romberg test and the Wii Fit basic balance test and cognition in athletes with concussion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Approximately 30% of individuals with a sport-related concussion present with postural instability. Multiple clinical balance tests exist to diagnose postural instability; yet little is known about the potential relationship between these type of postural assessments and cognition post-concussion. Aim: The purpose of the current study was to assess the relationship between the Romberg test, the Wii Fit basic balance test (WBBT), and the composite scores on the Immediate Post-Concussion Assessment and Cognitive Testing (ImPACT) test in a sample of athletes with concussions.Methods: 55 post-concussed athletes (40 male) completed the Romberg Test (RT) (−/+), the WBBT, and ImPACT test. Wii Fit basic balance test performance was operationalized as the number of successfully completed trials (of 5 trials of increasing difficulty) within 30 seconds. Pearson’s and point-biserial correlations examined univariate associations among the variables.Results: The RT and WBBT were not significantly related (r = −0.029, p = 0.832). The RT weakly correlated with ImPACT impairment scores (r= 0.26, p= 0.041), whereas WBBT the number of trials did not (r = − 0.20, p = 0.155). Romberg Test scores were significantly correlated with ImPACT Visual Processing Speed Score (r = 0.27, p = 0.036) and Reaction Time score (r = 0.34, p = 0.006). In contrast, WBBT trials were significantly correlated with the ImPACT Visual Memory Score (r = − 0.41, p = 0.003). Conclusions: These results suggest that the WBBT and RT assess unique aspects of postural control. The RT may relate directly to single sensory cognitive and motor processing, while the WBBT may relate to multi-sensory visually driven cognitive and motor processing.Relevance for patients: Clinical balance tests could point to different cognitive impairments post-concussion.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".