Decreasing internal focus of attention by executing a secondary task improves postural control in healthy younger adults, but not older ones
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigated the effects of shifting attentional focus from a postural control task to a concurrent attentionally demanding task (silent counting) in younger and older adults. The task was to stand on a force platform and move a centre of pressure (COP) feedback cursor along the mediolateral axis in a specific target location. Participants were asked to either focus internally on keeping their weight evenly distributed between both legs or focus externally on keeping the feedback cursor on the target. On some trials, they performed a concurrent silent arithmetic task with the postural task. Results revealed that younger adults had less sway variability when they focused externally, or performed a concurrent attentionally demanding task, however, older adults did not show the same pattern as younger adults. The finding suggests that both younger and older adults were using the visual feedback and performing the secondary task, but that the effects of these depended on the focus of attention instruction. While there is consistent evidence showed the benefit of an external focus compared to the internal focus, the relationship between focus of attention instruction and its effect on postural control in older individuals requires further exploration.Acknowledgments: We would like to thank members of the Physical Activity Centre for Excellence (PACE) at McMaster University for help with recruiting senior participants for this study.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".