Dancers’ resistance to vertigo cannot be explained by a generalized suppression of vestibular signaling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
From a vestibular perspective, it is remarkable that dancers are often performing challenging tasks such as pirouettes, and yet manage to do so without falling. Some have suggested that dancers' resistance to vertigo may be explained by a generalized suppression of vestibular signaling. Here, we aimed to test this hypothesis by examining the impact of galvanic vestibular stimulation (GVS) on postural control in dancers. A total of 38 participants were recruited for this study and were divided into two groups: 19 dancers and 19 healthy controls. Postural control was assessed at baseline and during GVS. As expected, dancers exhibited better postural control, as assessed by a decrease in sway area, when compared to the control group in the baseline condition. However, contrary to expectations, dancers did not differ from controls during GVS. This confirms that dancers' resistance to vertigo cannot be explained by a generalized suppression of vestibular signaling. Rather, dancers may have developed a more accurate body representation due to top-down modulation of subcortical neuronal networks and may only be able to modify vestibular input during active 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".