Textured foot orthotics and proprioception: augmenting cutaneous feedback to improve joint position sense accuracy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The maintenance of proprioception in upright standing posture and joint position sense accuracy (JPSA), is contingent on the coordination of sensory inputs made available to individuals during the task. Adding texture to augment cutaneous feedback on neuromuscular control of the ankle joint has yet to be studied in JPSA, thus motivating the purpose of this research to investigate the changes in ankle joint proprioception when wearing textured (FOTs) and non-textured orthoses (FOs) during a passive ankle joint position reproduction task in healthy young and middle-aged individuals (n = 48; 31 under 30 years, 17 over 30 years). Error accuracy, tibialis anterior and medial gastrocnemius muscle activity, and centre of pressure displacement were recorded from 48 participants while completing four ankle JPSA replication tasks (5°, 10° plantarflexion, 5°, 10° dorsiflexion) in stance. When the middle-aged participants (over 30 years) completed the dorsiflexion 5° JPSA task, a 31% error reduction was observed standing in FOTs compared to FOs. These results provide evidence supporting the effectiveness of adding cutaneous feedback to improve proprioception in middle-aged individuals.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
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.
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".