Selective preservation of changes to standing balance control despite psychological and autonomic habituation to a postural threat
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Humans exhibit changes in postural control when confronted with threats to stability. This study used a prolonged threat exposure protocol to manipulate emotional state within a threatening context to determine if any threat-induced standing behaviours are employed independent of emotional state. Retention of balance adaptations was also explored. Thirty-seven adults completed a series of 90-s standing trials at two surface heights (LOW: 0.8 m above ground, away from edge; HIGH: 3.2 m above ground, at edge) on two visits 2-4 weeks apart. Psychological and autonomic state was assessed using self-report and electrodermal measures. Balance control was assessed using centre of pressure (COP) and lower limb electromyographic recordings. Upon initial threat exposure, individuals leaned backward, reduced low-frequency centre of pressure (COP) power, and increased high-frequency COP power and plantar/dorsiflexor coactivation. Following repeated exposure, the psychological and autonomic response to threat was substantially reduced, yet only high-frequency COP power and plantar/dorsiflexor coactivation habituated. Upon re-exposure after 2-4 weeks, there was partial recovery of the emotional response to threat and few standing balance adaptations were retained. This study suggests that some threat-induced standing behaviours are coupled with the psychological and autonomic state changes induced by threat, while others may reflect context-appropriate adaptations resistant to habituation.
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".