Hemiplegic gait changes as a function of attentional focus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the effect of attentional focus on a supra-postural task during hemiplegic gait. Fourteen participants (age range: 47 – 72 years; 2 females, 12 males; 10 left side hemiplegic, 2 right side hemiplegic, 2 undefined), who were at least 6 months post-stroke, were recruited from the Windsor Essex Community Health Centre. The participants were asked to ambulate at their preferred speed down on a GAITRite walkway under three experimental conditions: 1) baseline 2) walking while transporting a cup and naming as many fruits and vegetables as possible, and 3) walking while transporting a cup and focusing either on “keeping the hand steady” (internal focus) or “keeping the cup steady”. During supra-postural trials, the cup was held in a participant’s non-involved hand and participants were shown the inclinometer attached to the cup and informed it would record movement. Temporal (normalized velocity, double-support loading time) and spatial (step length differential) parameters were used to examine changes in gait under each experimental condition. Inclinometer data were analyzed to determine supra-postural task performance. Analysis of results revealed that attentional focus does not improve temporal performance in hemiplegic patients where spasticity and balance issues are persistent. Contrary to previous studies which demonstrated an external focus advantage for motor performance, the analysis revealed that internal focus instructions lead to an improvement in the spatial parameters of gait. The short term adaptations in spatial parameters indicate a possible avenue of intervention in the early stages of rehabilitation in order to achieve temporal symmetry.Acknowledgments: Windsor Essex Community Heath Centre
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".