Response Time to a Vibrotactile Stimulus Presented on the Foot at Rest and During Walking on Different Surfaces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates the simple reaction time (SRT) and response time (RT) to a vibrotactile stimulus presented on two body locations at the lower extremity of the foot on different types of surface during walking. We determined RTs while walking on Concrete, Foam, Sand, and gravel surface. Also, for RT, we evaluated two vibrotactile stimulus (VS) locations on the lower extremity: the ankle (AL) and under the foot plantar (FP). A total of 21 young adult participants (n = 21), aged mean 24 ± 2.9 years, took part in a two-session experiment with two main conditions (at rest and while walking on four types of surface). The control session included 2016 repeated measures, with one-way and two-way ANOVA analyses. The findings have consistently revealed slowness of RT to VS, in particular on sand and gravel surface. In addition, we found that body location has a significant effect on RT in certain surfaces. These results showed that RTs increased with environment changes during the performance of dual tasks.
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) | 0.002 | 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".