Characterizing the limits of human stability during motion: perturbative experiment validates a model-based approach for the Sit-to-Stand task
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Falls affect a growing number of the population each year. Clinical methods to assess fall risk usually evaluate the performance of specific motions such as balancing or Sit-to-Stand. Unfortunately, these techniques have been shown to have poor predictive power, and are unable to identify the portions of motion that are most unstable. To this end, it may be useful to identify the set of body configurations that can accomplish a task under a specified control strategy. The resulting strategy-specific boundary between stable and unstable motion could be used to identify individuals at risk of falling. The recently proposed Stability Basin is defined as the set of configurations through time that do not lead to failure for an individual under their chosen control strategy. This paper presents a novel method to compute the Stability Basin and the first experimental validation of the Stability Basin with a perturbative Sit-to-Stand experiment involving forwards or backwards pulls from a motor-driven cable with 11 subjects. The individually-constructed Stability Basins are used to identify when a trial fails, i.e. when an individual must switch from their chosen control strategy (indicated by a step or sit) to recover from a perturbation. The constructed Stability Basins correctly predict the outcome of trials where failure was observed with over 90% accuracy, and correctly predict the outcome of successful trials with over 95% accuracy. The Stability Basin was compared to three other methods and was found to estimate the stable region with over 45% more accuracy in all cases. This study demonstrates that Stability Basins offer a novel model-based approach for quantifying stability during motion, which could be used in physical therapy for individuals at risk of falling.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".