Young Adults Are Impacted by the Spatial Context of Visual Cues to Perform Walking Turns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Walking turns require coordinated axial segment rotations combined with step placement modifications. Visual information can inform this coordination and is used in three stages of processing: to identify the stimulus, select the appropriate response, and execute the response. We adapted a Simon task protocol to explore how response selection impacts walking turn execution. Young adults (n = 24; 15 female; 24.9 ± 4.5 years) completed walking turns to goals located 60 degrees left or right of their walking path. In some trials, heel contact with a force plate triggered appearance of an arrow on the same side (congruent), opposite side (incongruent) or in the middle (neutral) of a screen. To determine impact of different biomechanical demands for task execution, researchers specified which foot to initiate gait for each trial; this ensured visual cues were triggered either by the same limb as the turn direction (ipsilateral) or opposite (contralateral). We observed that head and trunk yaw motion was initiated earlier and with greater relative rotation magnitude for incongruent visual cues. Step width adaptations were also observed for both step patterns when responding to incongruent visual cues. Conflict at the response selection phase of visual processing disrupts typical turning behaviors of young 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) | 0.003 | 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".