MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4414737189 · doi:10.1038/s41598-025-20418-7

Effects of balance-based visual reaction time exercises on cognitive and physical performance in older adults: a randomized controlled trial

2025· article· en· W4414737189 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Fatma Kübra Çekok, Bahar Anaforoğlu Külünkoğlu

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStroop effectCognitionRandomized controlled trialEffects of sleep deprivation on cognitive performanceTest (biology)Montreal Cognitive AssessmentExecutive functionsCognitive declineTimed Up and Go test

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Technological approaches that promote cognitive-motor abilities through visual information have recently become increasingly prevalent. This study aims to verify the effects of balance-based visual reaction time exercises on physical and cognitive performance in older adults. In this randomized controlled trial, 31 participants (aged 71.70 ± 5.67 years) were randomly allocated into two groups. The intervention group (n = 16) was enrolled in a balanced-based visual reaction exercise program, and the control group (n = 15) in a functional balance exercise program. The participants were assessed both prior to and following the intervention. Primary outcomes included global cognitive function, assessed using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA); executive function, measured through the Stroop Test; and reaction time, evaluated using the BlazePod system and the New Test. Secondary outcomes focused on physical performance and included the Five Times Sit-to-Stand Test (FTSS), Timed Up and Go Test (TUG), Four Square Step Test (FSST), Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB), and the Falls Efficacy Scale (FES) to assess fear of falling. At reassessment, the intervention group exhibited a significantly faster reaction time and made fewer mistakes on the Stroop test compared to the control group (p < 0.05). The intervention group also exhibited better physical performance and less fear of falling (p < 0.05). However, no significant improvements were observed in global cognitive function, as measured by the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), or in Stroop Interference scores (p $$\:>$$ 0.05). Two-model multiple linear regression analysis revealed that the changes in BlazePod reaction affected the improvement in TUG (β = 0.006, adjusted R2 = 0.24) and FES (β = 0.013, adjusted R2 = 0.15). In addition, the enhancement in FSST was influenced by changes in the BlazePod stroke (β=-0.585, Delta R2 = 0.22). This study demonstrated that balance-based visual reaction time exercises significantly improved reaction time and physical performance in older adults, while no significant changes were observed in executive function measures. These findings highlight the potential of visually guided dual-task training as a feasible strategy to enhance functional outcomes in this population.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.311 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
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 venueScientific Reports→Same topicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention→French-language works237,207→