Balance control mechanisms do not benefit from successive stimulation of different sensory systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In humans, to reduce deviations from a perfect upright position, information from various sensory cues is combined and continuously weighted based on its reliability. Combining noisy sensory information to produce a coherent and accurate estimate of body sway is a central problem in human balance control. In this study, we first compared the ability of the sensorimotor control mechanisms to deal with altered ankle proprioception or vestibular information (i.e., the single sensory condition). Then, we evaluated whether successive stimulation of difference sensory systems (e.g., Achilles tendon vibration followed by electrical vestibular stimulation, or vice versa) produced a greater alteration of balance control (i.e., the mix sensory condition). Electrical vestibular stimulation (head turned ~90°) and Achilles tendon vibration induced backward body sways. We calculated the root mean square value of the scalar distance between the center of pressure and the center of gravity as well as the time needed to regain balance (i.e., stabilization time). Furthermore, the peak ground reaction force along the anteroposterior axis, immediately following stimulation offset, was determined to compare the balance destabilization across the different conditions. In single conditions, during vestibular or Achilles tendon vibration, no difference in balance control was observed. When sensory information returned to normal, balance control was worse following Achilles tendon vibration. Compared to that of the single sensory condition, successive stimulation of different sensory systems (i.e., mix conditions) increased stabilization time. Overall, the present results reveal that single and successive sensory stimulation challenges the sensorimotor control mechanisms differently.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".