Effects of situational and social factors on locomotor behavior in chronic non-specific low back pain patients walking through apertures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chronic non-specific low back pain (cNSLBP) is a leading cause of disability. However, its impact on daily activities (e.g., walking in public spaces) remains poorly understood. This study aimed to examine how cNSLBP individuals make navigation decisions when exposed to varying situational and social conditions. Eighteen cNSLBP (45.7 ± 9.2 years, 10 women) and eighteen asymptomatic adults (AA, 43.7 ± 9.5 years, 7 women) walked a 10-meter path to reach a goal and chose to pass between two apertures placed midway according to four conditions: (1) baseline: two large apertures, (2) situational: narrow and large apertures, (3) situational and social: human interferer facing the narrow or for (4) large aperture. Measures included switch point, walking speed, clearance distance, and pain perception. Results revealed that cNSLBP participants adopted more conservative decision-making strategies. Under situational and social conditions, they showed a marked preference for the larger aperture (switch points per conditions (1) 0.1; (2) 1.83; (3) 3.35, and (4) 3.34), with weaker modulation of their choices based on goal position (p < 0.01) than AA participants (switch points per conditions (1) 0.2; (2) 0.70; (3) 1.77, and (4) 2.15). While all individuals adapted their strategy in the presence of a human interferer, cNSLBP participants gave less consideration to social norms, with no difference between switch points for conditions 3 and 4. In terms of kinematics, cNSLBP participants walked significantly slower than AA, regardless of condition or goal position (p < 0.001). For both groups, clearance distance significantly increased for all trials involving a human interferer (p < 0.05). No significant differences were observed between groups or conditions in shoulder rotation or in trunk torsion (p > 0.05). This paradigm offers a promising approach to addressing cNSLBP-related functional impairments, though further research is needed to clarify the underlying mechanisms.
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) | 0.001 | 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".