MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4365810821 · doi:10.1113/jp284055

Cortical potentials time‐locked to discrete postural events during quiet standing are facilitated during postural threat exposure

2023· article· en· W4365810821 on OpenAlexafffund
Martin Zaback, Kyle J. Missen, Allan L. Adkin, Romeo Chua, J. Timothy Inglis, Mark G. Carpenter

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Physiology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Canadian institutionsInternational Collaboration On Repair DiscoveriesBrock UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsHabituationPhysical medicine and rehabilitationBalance (ability)ElectroencephalographyQUIETForce platformPsychologyEvent-related potentialGround reaction forceNeuroscienceMedicineAudiologyPhysicsKinematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During unperturbed bipedal standing, postural control is governed primarily by subcortical and spinal networks. However, it is unclear if cortical networks begin to play a greater role when stability is threatened. This study investigated how initial and repeated exposure to a height-related postural threat modulates cortical potentials time-locked to discrete centre of pressure (COP) events during standing. Twenty-seven young adults completed a series of 90-s standing trials at LOW (0.8 m above the ground, away from edge) and HIGH (3.2 m above the ground, at edge) threat conditions. Three LOW trials were completed before and after 15 consecutive HIGH trials. Participants stood on a force plate while electroencephalographic (EEG) activity was recorded. To examine changes in cortical activity in response to discrete postural events, prominent forward and backward peaks in the anterior-posterior COP time series were identified. EEG data were waveform-averaged to these events and the amplitude of event-related cortical activity was calculated. At the LOW condition, event-related potentials (ERPs) were scarcely detectable. However, once individuals stood at the HIGH condition, clear ERPs were observed, with more prominent potentials being observed for forward (edge-directed), compared to backward, COP events. Since forward COP peaks accelerate the centre of mass away from the platform edge, these results suggest there is intermittent recruitment of cortical networks that may be involved in the detection and minimization of postural sway toward a perceived threat. This altered cortical engagement appears resistant to habituation and may contribute to threat-related balance changes that persist following repeated threat exposure. KEY POINTS: While standing balance control is regulated primarily by subcortical and spinal processes, it is unclear if cortical networks play a greater role when stability is threatened. This study examined how cortical potentials time-locked to prominent peaks in the anterior-posterior centre of pressure (COP) time series were modulated by exposure to a height-related postural threat. While cortical potentials recorded over the primary sensorimotor cortices were scarcely detectable under non-threatening conditions, clear cortical potentials were observed when individuals stood under conditions of height-related threat. Cortical potentials were larger in response to COP peaks directed toward, compared to away from, the platform edge, and showed limited habituation with repeated threat exposure. Since forward COP peaks accelerate the centre of mass away from the platform edge, these findings suggest that when balance is threatened, there is intermittent recruitment of cortical networks, which may minimize the likelihood of falling in the direction of a perceived threat.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.321 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations27
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of PhysiologySame topicBalance, Gait, and Falls PreventionFrench-language works237,207