Effect of arm motion on postural stability when recovering from a slip perturbation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to examine the effects of various arm swing on postural stability and recovery responses to an unexpected slip during treadmill walking. Fifteen healthy young adults (23.4 ± 2.8 years old) participated in this study. The CAREN-Extended system was used to simulate unexpected slip perturbations in a safe environment while walking symmetrically and asymmetrically with various arm swings (normal, bound, released). Whole-body angular momentum (range), peak trunk angular velocities, step width and stance time were extracted before and after perturbations (when recovering from slip). All participants were able to recover their balance after two strides and no falls occurred. There were significant differences (p < 0.05) in most gait parameters between pre- and post-perturbations. Arm conditions had significant effects on all gait parameters during both pre- and post-perturbation except for stance time. Compared to symmetric walking, walking asymmetrically before a perturbation led to larger step width and stance time among the different arm conditions both before and after the perturbations. Despite the presence of significant effects of different arm and walking conditions on most gait parameters during pre- and post-perturbation, participants were able to implement stabilization strategies to prevent fall even when they were prevented from using their normal arm swing, in both symmetric and asymmetric walking. While our results indicate that perturbations were mild to moderate in magnitude, investigations with elderly and faller populations are needed to examine their susceptibility to these arm and walking conditions when trying to regain postural balance.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".