The Effects of 30 Minutes of Artificial Gravity on Cognitive and Sensorimotor Performance in a Spaceflight Analog Environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The altered vestibular signaling and somatosensory unloading of microgravity result in sensory reweighting and adaptation to conflicting sensory inputs. Aftereffects of these adaptive changes are evident postflight as impairments in behaviors such as balance and gait. Microgravity also induces fluid shifts toward the head and an upward shift of the brain within the skull; these changes are well-replicated in strict head-down tilt bed rest (HDBR), a spaceflight analog environment. Artificial gravity (AG) is a potential countermeasure to mitigate these effects of microgravity. A previous study demonstrated that intermittent (six, 5-mins bouts per day) daily AG sessions were more efficacious at counteracting orthostatic intolerance in a 5 day HDBR study than continuous daily AG. Here we examined whether intermittent daily AG was also more effective than continuous dosing for mitigating brain and behavioral changes in response to 60 days of HDBR. Participants ( n = 24) were split evenly between three groups. The first received 30 mins of continuous AG daily (cAG). The second received 30 mins of intermittent AG daily (6 bouts of 5 mins; iAG). The third received no AG (Ctrl). We collected a broad range of sensorimotor, cognitive, and brain structural and functional assessments before, during, and after the 60 days of HDBR. We observed no significant differences between the three groups in terms of HDBR-associated changes in cognition, balance, and functional mobility. Interestingly, the intermittent AG group reported less severe motion sickness symptoms than the continuous group during centrifugation; iAG motion sickness levels were not elevated above those of controls who did not undergo AG. They also had a shorter duration of post-AG illusory motion than cAG. Moreover, the two AG groups performed the paced auditory serial addition test weekly while undergoing AG; their performance was more accurate than that of controls, who performed the test while in HDBR. Although AG did not counteract HDBR-induced gait and balance declines, iAG did not cause motion sickness and was associated with better self-motion perception during AG ramp-down. Additionally, both AG groups had superior cognitive performance while undergoing AG relative to controls; this may reflect attention or motivation differences between the groups.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".