Oculomotor stimulation without visual input has no impact on postural control
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It has been well established that eye movements have an impact on balance, and it has been hypothesized that extraocular oculomotor signals could play a significant role in this effect. Unfortunately, this hypothesis could not be confirmed as the previous methodology did not allow for the independent assessment of the differential effects of visual and oculomotor stimulation. The objective of the present study is to examine the impact of motor movements of the eyes without visual stimulation on balance. Static postural control, a prerequisite for balance, was assessed using a force platform in 20 participants. They were asked either to remain still without moving or to make movements of the tongue or eyes at a rate of two cycles per second. Movements were monitored using electrophysiological recordings. Each of the conditions was performed with eyes open and with eyes closed. Significant changes in postural control were observed due to eye movements when the eyes were open, but no significant differences were found between the conditions when the eyes were closed. The results confirm that the visual system provides important spatial cues for balance, allowing the body to be better positioned in space, and reject the possibility that extraocular signals are directly involved in postural stability.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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".