Comparisons of Spatiotemporal and Ground Reaction Force Components of Gait Between Individuals with Congenital Vision Loss and Sighted Individuals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The understanding of abnormalities in biomechanical parameters of gait in individuals with vision loss (i.e., blindness or low vision) has clinical importance. The aims of this study were to compare the spatiotemporal and ground reaction force variables of sighted individuals with those with vision loss. Methods: Ten sighted males and 10 young males with congenital vision loss were recruited. A Vicon motion analysis system with four cameras and two Kistler force plates was used to quantify spatiotemporal and ground reaction force components of both groups during walking without shoes. Sighted individuals walked in eyes-open and eyes-closed conditions. Results: Results showed that the stride and step length, walking speed, the vertical and posterior–anterior reaction forces in heel contact and push-off phase, and the impulse of the control group during walking with the open- and closed-eyes conditions were significantly smaller than those in persons with vision loss ( p < .05). Discussion: Vision loss is associated with decreased step and stride length, slower walking, and smaller propulsive reaction force. These kinematic and kinetics alterations suggest an adaptation to a new neuromuscular response for dynamic postural control as a result of lack of vision. These alterations in the long term may result in rigidity and muscle weakness. Implications for practitioners: A rehabilitation program to enhance mobility and strength is suggested for individuals with vision loss.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".