Effects of repetitive testing on reaction time and postural measures in healthy old adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the pervasive practice of repeated testing sessions, learning may be inherent due to repeated exposure; however limited research has examined the methodological implications of this phenomenon. Accordingly, ten healthy old adults (67±7 years) stood on a force plate for 30 s in feet apart (FA) and semi-tandem (ST) while completing simple reaction time (SRT) and choice reaction time (CRT) tasks. During the SRT trials, participants were asked to verbally respond “tie” to random high pitched auditory cues. During the CRT trials, participants were presented with low and high auditory stimuli and they were asked to respond “tow” and “tie”, respectively. The instructions were to stand as still as possible while verbally responding as fast as possible, when applicable. This protocol was repeated over a total of 5 sessions, each one week apart. Results showed a time effect for RT ( p <0.001) such that RT progressively decreased over the 5 sessions ( p <0.05). A time effect was also shown for center of pressure (COP) Path Length ( p =0.017) and COP Velocity ( p =0.023) as sway parameters progressively decreased over the 5 sessions ( p <0.05). Unsurprisingly, ST tasks showed significantly longer RT as well as greater sway parameters compared to FA tasks for RT ( p <0.001), Path Length ( p <0.001), Velocity ( p <0.001), COP Standard Deviation in the medial-lateral direction ( p <0.001), and COP Area ( p <0.001). These marked improvements in RT, Path Length and Velocity over time have important implications for interpreting data from interventions and other repeated assessments such as during balance training in a dual-task context. Notably, improvements in RT and standing posture demonstrated after repeated exposure to a dual-testing protocol may fully or partly be due to familiarization and learning effects as opposed to the intervention itself.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".