MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2386303485 · doi:10.1167/16.12.1361

An Exploratory Approach to Manipulating Dynamic Stability: Investigating the Role of Visual Control during a Precision Foot Placement Task

2016· article· en· W2386303485 on OpenAlexaff
Russell Kennedy, Michael E. Cinelli

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKinematicsGazeTrunkTask (project management)Eye trackingFoot (prosody)Computer scienceComputer visionArtificial intelligenceMathematicsSimulationPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPsychologyPhysicsEngineeringMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bacgkground: The visual system acts as a feedforward control mechanism during human locomotion. Visual information contributes coordination of the head-arm-trunk (HAT) segment and modulating foot placement. The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of a complex navigational stone-stepping task on HAT segment control and how the visual system guides locomotion during a complex foot placement task. Methods: Nine university-aged females (Mean age: 22.5 years old +/-1.75) participated in this study. Participants were outfitted with four rigid bodies and two IRED markers in order to measure kinematic data, as well as an ASL H7-HS High Speed Head Mounted Optics eye tracking unit to assess gaze behaviour. Participants performed 40 trials across four conditions (e.g. predetermined and self-selected pathways; starting with either the left or the right foot), on a 7.2mx1.2m raised-target platform. Measurements were compared across conditions (e.g. constrained versus unconstrained), time points (e.g. first, middle, and last trial performed of each condition), and segment (one versus two). Results: Findings revealed that there was a significant difference between conditions such that: 1) the constrained vertical pupil RMS velocity was higher than the unconstrained (F(3,24)=4.71; p= .04; d=.46); 2) the unconstrained horizontal pupil RMS velocity was higher than the unconstrained (F(3,24)=4.40; p= .03; d=.36); 3) the constrained average walking speed was greater than the unconstrained (F(3,24)=23.27; p=0.04; d=.30); 4) the constrained trunk pitch was greater than the unconstrained (F(3,21)=4.84; p=0.01; d=.45); and 5) the unconstrained dynamic stability margin minimum was greater than the constrained (F(3,21)=4.89; p= .01; d=.41). Conclusions: During constrained trials, there was evidence to suggest that trunk control had a greater regulation than during unconstrained trials. However, during unconstrained trials, individuals were able to choose footholds based on their current state of stability. Thus, conditional demands influenced gaze behaviour, separating eye movements into vertical or horizontal components. Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2016

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.329 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Vision→Same topicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention→French-language works237,207→