Visual cue spatial context affects performance of anticipatory postural adjustments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Past research indicates that anticipatory postural adjustment (APA) errors may be due to the incorrect selection of responses to visual stimuli. In the current study we used the Simon task as a methodological tool to challenge the response selection stage of processing by presenting visual cues with conflicting spatial context; in this case generating a step response to a left pointing arrow which appears to the participant's right side or vice versa. We expected greater mediolateral APA errors, delayed APA and step onset times, and greater lateral CoP displacement prior to stepping for visual cues with incongruent spatial contexts compared to cues with congruent. Thirteen healthy young adults completed step initiation trials (n = 40) from a force platform while whole-body kinematic motion was tracked. Participants were presented with arrows pointing to the left or right, indicating to step with the left or right limb, respectively. These arrows were presented on the same side as the desired step direction (congruent) or the opposite side (incongruent). Results revealed that incongruent trials resulted in significantly more incidences of mediolateral APA errors and greater mediolateral CoP deviations during the APA compared to congruent visual cue context trials. No effects were observed for the temporal outcomes, suggesting that young adults can maintain temporal execution of steps despite these motor control errors. This study demonstrates that the spatial context of visual information significantly impacts the success of response selection processes during step initiation, furthering our knowledge of how humans integrate visual information to initiate whole body movement.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".