Postural orientation with conflicting visual and graviceptive cues to ‘upright’ among individuals with and without a history of post-stroke ‘pushing’
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: This study aimed to determine how people with stroke, with and without pushing behaviour, use sensory cues to control postural orientation. Methods: Eight people with chronic stroke (4 with history of pushing behaviour), 5 people with sub-acute stroke (1 with active pushing behaviour) and 8 similarly-aged controls with no history of stroke participated. Participants sat in a motion platform while viewing a 240-degree screen upon which a city street scene was projected. Postural orientation (shoulder and trunk angles) was measured relative to the direction of gravity during 6 trials: visual scene tilted 18-degrees left and right; motion base tilted 18-degrees left and right; and both visual scene and motion base tilted 18-degrees left and right. Results: Participants with stroke did not appear to adjust their posture in response to visual scene tilt to a greater extent than control participants. For most conditions, chronic stroke participants with a history of pushing behaviour oriented their posture more towards the contralesional side than controls. When the motion base was tilted, sub-acute participants with no evidence of pushing behaviour oriented their posture more in the direction of motion base tilt than controls (e.g., when the motion base tilted to their ipsilesional sides, their trunks and shoulders were oriented to the ipsilesional side). Conclusion: This study did not find evidence that people with stroke with and without a history of pushing behaviour rely more on static visual cues to control postural orientation than people without stroke.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it