Long-duration head down bed rest as an analog of microgravity: Effects on the static perception of upright
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Humans demonstrate many physiological changes in microgravity for which long-duration head down bed rest (HDBR) is a reliable analog. However, information on how HDBR affects sensory processing is lacking. OBJECTIVE: We previously showed [25] that microgravity alters the weighting applied to visual cues in determining the perceptual upright (PU), an effect that lasts long after return. Does long-duration HDBR have comparable effects? METHODS: We assessed static spatial orientation using the luminous line test (subjective visual vertical, SVV) and the oriented character recognition test (PU) before, during and after 21 days of 6° HDBR in 10 participants. Methods were essentially identical as previously used in orbit [25]. RESULTS: Overall, HDBR had no effect on the reliance on visual relative to body cues in determining the PU. However, when considering the three critical time points (pre-bed rest, end of bed rest, and 14 days post-bed rest) there was a significant decrease in reliance on visual relative to body cues, as found in microgravity. The ratio had an average time constant of 7.28 days and returned to pre-bed-rest levels within 14 days. The SVV was unaffected. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that bed rest can be a useful analog for the study of the perception of static self-orientation during long-term exposure to microgravity. More detailed work on the precise time course of our effects is needed in both bed rest and microgravity conditions.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".