What Is the Role of Sustained Visual Attention in the Maintenance of Postural Control in Young Adults?
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
Abstract: Dual tasks requiring sustained visual attention and upright stance are common, yet their impact on standing balance is not well understood. We investigated the role of visual attention in the maintenance of postural control, using the multiple-object tracking (MOT) task. Healthy young adults ( n = 12) performed the MOT task at three object movement speeds while seated or standing. MOT performance was assessed using tracking capacity ( k). Metrics calculated to assess mediolateral (ML) and anterior–posterior (AP) postural control included: maximum difference between CoM and CoP position (CoM–CoP Max), root mean square distance for center of pressure and center of mass position (CoP and CoM RMS distance), and correlation between CoM and CoP time series signals (CoM/CoP correlation). As predicted, k decreased significantly as object movement speed increased for both standing and seated conditions. Object movement speed also significantly affected AP CoM–CoP Max in seated conditions ( p = .021) and AP CoM/CoP correlation for standing conditions ( p = .002). The results demonstrate utility of the MOT task in understanding the role of visual attention in postural control, even though healthy young adults were able to compensate for the addition of a sustained visual attention task, with minimal deficits to postural control.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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