Effects of postural threat on perceptions of lower leg somatosensory stimuli during standing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Height-induced postural threat affects emotional state and standing balance behaviour during static, voluntary, and dynamic tasks. Facing a threat to balance also affects sensory and cortical processes during balance tasks. As sensory and cognitive functions are crucial in forming perceptions of movement, balance-related changes during threatening conditions might be associated with changes in conscious perceptions. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine the changes and potential mechanisms underlying conscious perceptions of balance-relevant information during height-induced postural threat. A combination of three experimental procedures utilized height-induced postural threat to manipulate emotional state, balance behavior, and/or conscious perceptions of balance-related stimuli. Experiment 1 assessed conscious perception of foot position during stance. During continuous antero-posterior pseudorandom support surface rotations, perceived foot movement was larger while actual foot movement did not change in the High (3.2 m, at the edge) compared to Low (1.1 m, away from edge) height conditions. Experiment 2 and 3 assessed somatosensory perceptual thresholds during upright stance. Perceptual thresholds for ankle rotations were elevated while foot sole vibrations thresholds remained unchanged in the High compared to Low condition. This study furthers our understanding of the relationship between emotional state, sensory perception, and balance performance. While threat can influence the perceived amplitude of above threshold ankle rotations, there is a reduction in the sensitivity of an ankle rotation without any change to foot sole sensitivity. These results highlight the effect of postural threat on neurophysiological and cognitive components of balance control and provide insight into balance assessment and intervention.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".