Perceived timing of postural instability onset
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background This study examines the perceived timing of postural instability onset, a crucial aspect of balance. Previous research using Temporal Order Judgment (TOJ) tasks found that postural perturbations need to occur significantly earlier than an auditory reference stimulus for individuals to perceive them as simultaneous. However, there are methodological concerns with this prior work, specifically regarding an unbalanced stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) distribution. Research question Does the point of subjective simultaneity (PSS) between postural perturbation onset and an auditory reference stimulus differ for equal versus unequal SOA distributions? Methods A repeated measures design was utilized, presenting two different SOA distributions to 10 participants using a TOJ task during both the equal (72 trials) and unequal (88 trials) SOA distributions. Paired t-tests were used to determine if there was a significant difference between the PSS of the equal and unequal SOA distributions. Additionally, one-sample t-tests were performed on the PSS values of both the equal and unequal SOA distributions in comparison to 0ms (defined as true simultaneity) to determine if perceptual responses were delayed. Results The results indicate that the unequal SOA distribution resulted in a perceived delay of postural instability onset by 20.34ms, while the equal SOA distribution resulted in a perceived delay of the auditory stimulus of 3.52ms. However, neither condition was significantly different from each other nor from true simultaneity. Significance These findings suggest that the perception of postural instability onset is not slow, as previously thought, and highlight the importance of controlling methodological parameters when investigating sensory cues. This knowledge highlights the importance of controlling methodological parameters when investigating the perception of sensory cues and will help inform falls prevention strategies.
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 | 0.007 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 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".