Attentional Distractions Do Not Influence Lumbar Spine Local Dynamic Stability during Repetitive Flexion-Extension Movements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The association between low back pain and lumbar spine local dynamic stability (LDS) appears to be modulated by if and how someone catastrophizes about pain, suggesting that the cognitive perceptions of pain may influence an individual's ability to control lumbar spine motion. Previous work also demonstrates that directing cognitive resources and attentional focus can influence movement performance. Therefore, we aimed to examine whether distracting attentional focus would influence lumbar spine LDS during repetitive flexion-extension movements. Sixteen participants performed repetitive spine flexion-extension movements under two baseline conditions (pre- and post-), and while attentional focus was distracted by either an external sensory stimulus or a cognitive-motor dual-task, both targeted at the hands. Lumbar spine LDS was examined over 30 continuous movement repetitions using maximum Lyapunov exponents. In comparison to both Baseline and Post-Baseline trials, the perceived mental workload was significantly elevated during the cognitive-motor dual-task trial but not the external sensory stimulus trial. The only statistically significant effect on LDS occurred in the Post-Baseline trial, where LDS was higher than in the cognitive-motor dual-task. In combination with previous work, these findings suggest that distracting attentional focus during repetitive lumbar spine flexion-extension movements does not have a negative influence on lumbar spine LDS.
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 | 0.006 |
| 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".