Thirty minutes of daily artificial gravity does not mitigate head down tilt induced brain activity changes during cognitive task performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Studies have shown that microgravity results in high dual task costs when crewmembers perform cognitive-motor dual tasking. Head-down tilt bedrest (HDBR) has been widely used as a spaceflight analog environment, recreating some of the sensorimotor and cognitive changes, headward fluid shifts, and unloading of bones and muscles. Here, we examined whether artificial gravity (AG) mitigates changes in cognitive performance and associated brain activity that occur in the HDBR environment. Methods: = 8 controls) during the course of 60 days HDBR. Participants performed spatial working memory and cognitive-motor dual tasking prior to entering HDBR, during HDBR and post-HDBR. Results: Brain activation patterns associated with these two tasks changed with HDBR, but there was no difference between the AG and control groups. Compensatory brain-behavioral change-change correlations were observed, where those who increased activation the most had the least decrease in motor tapping accuracy from pre-HDBR to late-HDBR. Discussion: These results suggest that AG does not reduce the need for compensatory brain responses that occur with HDBR, but longer duration and/or more optimal AG phasing may be required.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".