Head‐Eye Coordination Increases with Age and Varies across Countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Head movements in older people may contribute to their dizziness and equilibrium problems. Head gain is the ratio of head movement to total movement (head + eye) when executing a saccade to an eccentric target. Two studies have investigated the relationship between head gain and age but have provided conflicting results. METHODS: We report head gain data collected from research laboratories and optician stores. Our sample sizes are much larger (n = 657 for laboratory, n = 64,458 for optician stores), permitting more detailed analyses. RESULTS: The head-eye coefficient, expressed as 100 times the square root of head gain, was bimodal with one mode of primarily eye movers and one mode of eye-and-head movers. Head-eye coefficient increased with age and was invariant with eye correction and gender. We also found an effect of nation that seemed associated with gross domestic product or by latitude (in the northern hemisphere) and log population density. DISCUSSION: Assuming that head movements and visual distortions contribute to dizziness and equilibrium problems, our study suggests that customizing eyewear based on age and country may help in reducing the prevalence of problems associated with head and/or eye movements.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".