Impaired Sensorimotor Processing During Complex Gait Precedes Behavioral Changes in Middle-aged Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gait impairment during complex walking in older adults is thought to result from a progressive failure to compensate for deteriorating peripheral inputs by central neural processes. It is the primary hypothesis of this article that failure of higher cerebral adaptations may already be present in middle-aged adults who do not present observable gait impairments. We, therefore, compared metabolic brain activity during steering of gait (ie, complex locomotion) and straight walking (ie, simple locomotion) in young and middle-aged individuals. Cerebral distribution of [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose, a marker of brain synaptic activity, was assessed during over ground straight walking and steering of gait using positron emission tomography in seven young adults (aged 24 ± 3) and seven middle-aged adults (aged 59 ± 3). Brain regions involved in steering of gait (posterior parietal cortex, superior frontal gyrus, and cerebellum) are retained in middle age. However, despite similar walking performance, there are age-related differences in the distribution of [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose during steering: middle-aged adults have (i) increased activation of precentral and fusiform gyri, (ii) reduced deactivation of multisensory cortices (inferior frontal, postcentral, and fusiform gyri), and (iii) reduced activation of the middle frontal gyrus and cuneus. Our results suggest that preclinical decline in central sensorimotor processing in middle age is observable during complex walking.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".