Comparison of sensitivity among dynamic balance measures during walking with different tasks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although various measures have been proposed to evaluate dynamic balance during walking, it is currently unclear which measures are most sensitive to dynamic balance. We aimed to investigate which dynamic balance measure is most sensitive to detecting differences in dynamic balance during walking across various gait parameters, including short- and long-term Lyapunov exponents ( λ s and λ l ), margin of stability (MOS), distance between the desired and measured centre of pressure (dCOP–mCOP) and whole-body angular momentum (WBAM). A total of 10 healthy young adults were asked to walk on a treadmill under three different conditions (normal walking, dual-task walking with a Stroop task as an unstable walking condition, and arm-restricted walking with arms restricted in front of the chest as another unstable walking condition) that were expected to have different dynamic balance properties. Overall, we found that λ s of the centre of mass velocity, λ s of the trunk velocity, λ s of the hip joint angle, and the magnitude of the mediolateral dCOP–mCOP at heel contact can identify differences between tasks with a high sensitivity. Our findings provide new insights into the selection of sensitive dynamic balance measures during human walking.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 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".