Frontal Hemodynamic Response During Step Initiation Under Cognitive Conflict in Older and Young Healthy People
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gait initiation is a daily challenge even for healthy individuals as it requires the timely coupling between the automatic anticipatory postural adjustment (APA) and the voluntary step according to the context. Modulation of this motor event has been thought to involve higher level brain control, including cognitive inhibitory circuitries. Despite the known participation of the supplementary motor area (SMA) in the modulation of some parameters of APA, the participation of areas controlling inhibition during gait initiation still needs to be investigated. In this study, the hemodynamic responses of the SMA and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) were assessed using functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) during a gait initiation task under cognitive conflict to select the foot to step (congruent [CON] and incongruent [INC] conditions). The older group (OG) showed worse inhibitory control than the young group (YG) along with more impairments in APA parameters. OG also had a lower amplitude of hemodynamic responses in both areas than YG in the INC. The INC increased the correlation between SMA and DLPFC only in the YG. Aging seems to impair the interaction between the hemodynamic responses of SMA and DLPFC, which influences APA performance in gait initiation under cognitive conflict.
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".