The Effect of Plantar Flexor Fatigue and Cognitive Recall Task on Standing Balance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Previous studies have shown that fatigue of the plantar flexor muscles and mental tasks each can lead to impaired balance. The purpose of this study is to analyze the effects of a combined increase in cognitive load and plantar flexor fatigue can have on standing balance. Methods: Fifteen (7 males, 8 females) healthy individuals participated in one testing session. Prior to testing, participants were screened for existing balance and plantar flexor health issues via a medical history questionnaire. Participants performed a total of twelve standing balance trials, each 30 seconds in duration. These trials consisted of three control, three recall, three fatigue, and three fatigue recall trials. For each trial, participants closed their eyes and stood with their feet together on a force plate. Recall ability was evaluated based on the participant’s ability to accurately complete the reverse digit recall section of the SCAT-3. Plantar flexor fatigue was achieved by performing five repetitions of standing calf raises. Each repetition consisted of a five second eccentric contraction, a five second concentric contraction, and a five second isometric contraction. The means of the 90% radius of the center of pressure was compared to the standing baseline across all conditions. Results:Similar significant differences were found across 90% radius and center of pressure in both medial-lateral and anterior-posterior directions. Across all three variables, the recall condition was not significantly different (p>0.05) than control standing. Both fatigue and fatigue recall conditions were significantly different (p<0.05) Conclusion: Collectively, the data indicates that fatigue, rather than recall, had a greater effect on all measured variables of balance. This suggests that balance is a primarily muscle driven task, and not a mental task.
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) | 0.003 | 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".