The Effect of Basic Position Training on Walking Abilities of Visually Impaired Individuals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective of this study is to help the basic standing position training to take its part among basic exercises of the visually impaired individuals, and to observe the effects of this training on walking and balance skills.Method: 8 visually impaired sedentary individuals with impairment levels of B1 and B2 and ages of 18 to 24 voluntarily participated in the study. After acknowledging the visually impaired individuals with audial information regarding the study, they were told to brisk walk for 15 steps against the audio signal and then to heel-to-toe walk for 15 steps. Their corresponding walking distances, walking durations, directional impairments and losses of balance were recorded. During the 8 week period following this test, 45 minute training sessions accompanied by trainers that included 4 basic standing positions and their combinations were applied once a week, where the trainer corrected the individuals verbally and physically. Abovementioned tests were repeated after these 8 weeks. Gender categorization was not made since the participants were few in number. Non-parametric Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test was applied and a significant increase for the pretest was observed at a 0.05 significance level, where the distances walked increased and walking durations along with losses of balance decreased.Result: It was observed that walking skills of visually impaired individuals that received verbal and physical assistance, and that effectively performed basic positions and their combinations were smoother and more confident; that their walking distances were increased, their losses of balance were decreased and that they encountered less deviations from the direction of movement while walking, compared to their pretest conditions. Starting from this point of view, it might be concluded that the basic standing positions were highly beneficial and applicable activities for walking training of visually impaired individuals.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".