The Effects of Subthreshold Vibration on Balance Recovery in Young Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Falls are a major cause of injuries in young adults and occur due to an inability to recover from a loss of balance. Since previous studies have reported that applying subthreshold vibration to the foot sole enhances tactile feedback and improves standing balance, this study aimed to extend these findings by examining whether vibration also improves one’s ability to recover from a loss of balance. Eighteen young adults (22.9 ± 3.2 y) stood on vibrating tactors that could stimulate the heel, first and fifth metatarsals at 90% of the sensory threshold. From this standing position, the surface on which participants were standing was rapidly translated in the forward or backward direction to cause participants to unexpectedly lose their balance. For half of the surface translation trials, the vibrating tactors were activated to increase tactile feedback. In response to each surface translation, center of mass (COM) displacement and stepping responses were analyzed as indicators of balance recovery. Results indicated that while vibration induced a 1.5 ± 0.4 mm (p = 0.039) greater COM displacement at 200 ms after the onset of a backward translation, the number of stepping responses and the COM displacement were not different between vibration conditions for all other times and translation directions. This suggests that increasing tactile feedback via sub-threshold vibration does not functionally improve balance recovery in young adults. While vibration may not be beneficial for reactive balance control in young adults, future studies could explore whether the effects of vibration are more prominent in individuals with reduced tactile sensation (e.g. older adults).
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".