Recovery of dynamic stability during slips unaffected by arm swing in people with Parkinson’s Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The arm elevation strategy assists in recovering stability during slips in healthy young and elderly individuals. However, in people with Parkinson's Disease, one of the main motor symptoms affecting the upper limbs is reduced arm swing which intensifies throughout the course of the disease before becoming absent. This holds direct implications for these individuals when encountering slips as the arm elevation strategy is an integral component in the interlimb slip response to restore stability. Arm swing's effect in recovering from slips in people with Parkinson's Disease though remains unexamined. Twenty people with Parkinson's Disease (63.78 ± 8.97 years) walked with restricted and unrestricted arm swing conditions on a dual-belt treadmill where slips were induced on the least and most affected sides. Data were collected on the CAREN Extended System (Motek Medical, Amsterdam, NL). The Margin of Stability, linear and angular trunk velocities, as well as step length, time, and width were calculated. Data were examined during the slipped step and recovery step. The restricted arm swing condition, compared to unrestricted, caused a faster step time during the slipped step. Compared to the most affected leg, the least affected had a wider step width during the slipped step. During the recovery step, the least affected leg had a larger anteroposterior Margin of Stability and longer step time than the most affected. No differences between our arm swing conditions suggests that the normal arm swing in our participants was not more effective at restoring stability after an induced slip compared to when their arm motion was restricted. This may be due to the arm elevation strategy being ineffective in counteracting the slip's backward destabilization in these individuals. Differences between the legs revealed that our participants were asymmetrically impaired in their slip recovery response.
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) | 0.001 | 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".