Visually-evoked postural responses to small, rapid stimuli in the naïve participant
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous work has clearly demonstrated that visual feedback is integrated into the control of postural alignment and orientation, and is suggested to contribute to corrections for unexpected self-motion. Experimentally-generated visual stimuli have typically been oscillating or long duration and analysis has focused on averaged responses. The present study investigated whether a small, rapid unexpected displacement of a visual surround was sufficient to evoke a postural correction and whether the false stimulus was disambiguated on subsequent exposures. In a second group of participants, it was asked whether the provision of light touch feedback disambiguated the visual stimulus. The ramp-and-hold visual stimulus was created by displacing (2.5 cm, 130 mm/s peak velocity) a visual surround either forwards or backwards. Responses were characterized from the anterior-posterior motion of the center of pressure under the feet. All participants in the No Touch cohort responded by swaying in the direction of the visual stimulus on the first trial, preceded by an initial deflection in the opposite direction, with an onset latency of ~ 240 ms. Similar responses, but of markedly smaller amplitude, were observed with the first trial in the Touch cohort. The amplitude of the response decreased on subsequent trials in both cohorts, however the time-varying motion in the center of pressure remained evident in trials 8 to 10. These results indicate that small, rapid visual stimuli are sufficient to induce postural corrections to sensed self-motion. The false-positive self-motion responses are not completely disambiguated by repeated exposure or by additional sensory feedback from touch.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".