MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412488611 · doi:10.1097/aud.0000000000001707

Spatial Position Modulates the Benefits of Auditory Inputs for Postural Control

2025· article· en· W4412488611 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel Paromov, Maxime Maheu, Benoit-Antoine Bacon, François Champoux

Bibliographic record

VenueEar and Hearing · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversité de MontréalInstitut Universitaire de Gériatrie de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAudiologyAuditory stimuliAuditory maskingAzimuthPosition (finance)Contrast (vision)Auditory perceptionAcousticsPsychologyComputer scienceMathematicsPerceptionMedicineComputer visionPhysicsNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: The study aimed to examine the contribution of the position of a sound source to static postural control. The authors hypothesized that in line with the auditory anchorage theory, more benefits would be observed when sounds are positioned in easy-to-localize locations. DESIGN: A force plate was used to measure sway area, sway velocity, and standard deviation in 23 participants. Auditory stimuli were presented at various azimuth angles (0°, 45°, 90°), and their effects were compared with a silent baseline condition without any added auditory input. RESULTS: The present results revealed a significant improvement in sway parameters when auditory inputs were added. However, in contrast to the 0° and 45° locations, the 90° location did not affect sway area and SD when compared with the condition without auditory input. Improvement was observed across all the locations of the auditory inputs for sway velocity. CONCLUSION: These findings support the auditory anchorage theory, suggesting that auditory objects positioned in areas that are easy to localize contribute more effectively to postural stabilization.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.365
Threshold uncertainty score0.293

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.310 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEar and HearingSame topicBalance, Gait, and Falls PreventionFrench-language works237,207