The Fukuda Stepping Test Is Influenced by a Concurrent Cognitive Task and Step Height in Healthy Young Adults: A Descriptive Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The Fukuda stepping test assesses spatial orientation in people with vestibular disorders. To standardize the test, it is important to know which factors influence the outcome. This study investigated the impact of two factors, a concurrent cognitive task and step height, on the Fukuda stepping test in healthy individuals. Method: A total of 16 young adults participated and completed 20 trials of the 50-step Fukuda stepping test in four conditions: comfortable and high step height and with and without a cognitive task. Body kinematics were collected using the three-dimensional motion analysis Vicon system. The cognitive task was to listen to a sequence of three-digit numbers and identify the total number of times that one pre-determined digit was presented. Results: All participants slowly turned and drifted forward during the test. The concurrent cognitive task yielded significantly shorter forward displacement and lateral deviation and lower stepping height, and high stepping produced significantly greater body rotation and lateral deviation. Conclusions: Performance on the Fukuda stepping test in healthy young individuals is influenced by a concurrent cognitive task and by step height. Clinicians and researchers must instruct people to use a comfortable step height during the test, and they must be aware that a concurrent cognitive task may improve test performance, at least among young adults.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".