A kinematics recommendation for trunk stability and control assessments during unstable sitting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Trunk control has been commonly studied via an unstable sitting paradigm, with the majority of analyses using angular kinematics-based, posturographic measures. However, considerable variability in the choice of kinematics exists. Furthermore, the kinematics capturing the completion of this task are unknown. The purpose of this study was to characterize the kinematics in unstable sitting by quantifying and comparing the angular motion of the base of support, pelvis, and trunk as elicited via a commonly used wobble board (WB) paradigm. WB, pelvis, and trunk motion was recorded in fifteen non-disabled participants sitting on a wobble board. Posturographic measures were calculated and compared between corresponding WB and pelvis, and between WB and trunk angles. The trunk was stabilized through relatively large WB motion, with the trunk adopting a quasi-static pose. For all measures, angles, and conditions, the WB measure values were significantly larger than their corresponding pelvis or trunk values. Our findings demonstrate that the WB-human system is stabilized by regulating WB motion. Future work utilizing an unstable sitting surface and kinematics-based analyses to investigate trunk control should include the analysis of base of support kinematics.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".