Influence of Augmented Visual Feedback on Balance Control in Unilateral Transfemoral Amputees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patients with a lower limb amputation rely more on visual feedback to maintain balance than able-bodied individuals. Altering this sensory modality in amputees thus results in a disrupted postural control. However, little is known about how lower limb amputees cope with augmented visual information during balance tasks. In this study, we investigated how unilateral transfemoral amputees incorporate visual feedback of their center of pressure (CoP) position during quiet standing. Ten transfemoral amputees and ten age-matched able-bodied participants were provided with real-time visual feedback of the position of their CoP while standing on a pressure platform. Their task was to keep their CoP within a small circle in the center of a computer screen placed at eye level, which could be achieved by minimizing their postural sway. The visual feedback was then delayed by 250 and 500 ms and was combined with a two- and five-fold amplification of the CoP displacements. Trials with eyes open without augmented visual feedback as well as with eyes closed were further performed. The overall performance was measured by computing the sway area. We further quantified the dynamics of the CoP adjustments using the entropic half-life (EnHL) to study possible physiological mechanisms behind postural control. Amputees showed an increased sway area compared to the control group. The EnHL values of the amputated leg were significantly higher than those of the intact leg and the dominant and non-dominant leg of controls. This indicates lower dynamics in the CoP adjustments of the amputated leg, which was compensated by increasing the dynamics of the CoP adjustments of the intact leg. Receiving real-time visual feedback of the CoP position did not significantly reduce the sway area neither in amputees nor in controls when comparing with the eyes open condition without visual feedback of the CoP position. Further, with increasing delay and amplification, both groups were able to compensate for small visual perturbations, yet their dynamics were significantly lower when additional information was not received in a physiologically relevant time frame. These findings may be used for future design of neurorehabilitation programs to restore sensory feedback in lower limb amputees.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".