Coordination of Gaze Behavior and Foot Placement During Walking in Persons With Glaucoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Vision normally provides environmental information necessary to direct the foot to safe locations during walking. Peripheral visual field loss limits what a person can see, and may alter how a person visually samples the environment. Here we tested the hypothesis that the spatial-temporal coupling between gaze and stepping in a precision-based walking task is altered in persons with glaucoma, particularly under dual task situations, and results in reduced foot-placement accuracy. METHODS: Twenty persons with glaucoma and 20 normally sighted controls performed a precision walking task that involved stepping to the center of 4 targets under 3 conditions: targets only, walking, and counting backwards to simulate a conversation, and walking while performing a concurrent visual search task to simulate locating a landmark. We quantified foot-placement error and error variability with respect to the targets, as well as saccade and fixation timing with respect to foot placement. RESULTS: Compared with controls, persons with glaucoma looked earlier at future stepping targets (with respect to toe-off of the foot) in the targets only and count conditions, and transferred gaze away sooner from the current stepping target in all conditions (P<0.05). Persons with glaucoma also had increased foot-placement error, particularly in the count condition, and increased foot-placement error variability compared with normally sighted controls (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Glaucoma significantly disrupts gaze-foot coordination and results in less accurate foot placement when precision is required during walking. This may increase the risk of trips and falls in this population.
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".