Visual Biofeedback and Postural Control: Exploring Potential Implicit Visual Integration
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Real-time visual biofeedback (vBF) of body sway is known to enhance postural control by reducing center of pressure (COP) displacement. However, the mechanisms underlying its influence remain unclear, particularly regarding implicit processing. The objective of this study was to examine whether vBF is utilized implicitly by exposing 40 young adults to both real-time (accurate) and erroneous (delayed) COP feedback without explicitly explaining its purpose. Participants were simply instructed to stand as still as possible. After the experiment, 15 out of 40 participants spontaneously recognized the feedback's nature. Results indicated that both aware and unaware participants exhibited improved postural control under accurate vBF (i.e., reduced COP variability, smaller COP area, increased COP irregularity, and greater reliance on higher sway frequencies). In contrast, erroneous vBF induced minimal changes. While these findings highlight a possible implicit integration of the visual feedback, the results also underscore the need for future research to investigate this phenomenon with more refined methods, as classifying participants into aware and unaware groups presents certain challenges.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it