MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7133058954

Cerebral potentials evoked by balance perturbations

2006· dissertation· W7133058954 on OpenAlexaff
Sylvia Quant

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2006
Typedissertation
Language
FieldHealth Professions
TopicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoLibrary and Archives Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSensory systemStimulus (psychology)ElectroencephalographyCerebral cortexCognitionBalance (ability)ElectrophysiologyPerturbation (astronomy)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To investigate the role of the cerebral cortex in human compensatory postural control, electroencephalography was used to record perturbation-evoked cerebral potentials (PEPS). Previous studies have identified a large negative cerebral potential termed the N1 response (peak latency being 100-200 ms with respect to the perturbation onset), which was accompanied by a positive cerebral potential termed the P2 response (peak latency being 200-500 ms with respect to the perturbation onset). As these studies provided a limited understanding of the role of PEPS in compensatory postural control, the main thesis goals were: (1) to further explore N1 and its relation to sensory processing of the postural perturbation, and (2) to determine whether P2 represented sensorimotor events associated with the control of the postural response. N1 and P2 responses were examined in four interconnected studies which involved: (1) determining whether N1 represented sensory inputs related to the perturbation or sensorimotor events related to the control of evoked balance responses, (2) determining the influence of altered attention on N1 by comparing conditions that featured the presence and absence of a concurrent cognitive task, (3) examining the influence of stimulus predictability on N1, and (4) altering the later components of balance responses in order to establish influence over P2. Based on these studies, there were several important findings that have led to a better understanding of these potentials. Firstly, N1 appeared to represent sensory events related to the perturbation that were independent of ankle automatic postural reactions (APRs). Secondly, N1 appeared to be modulated by altered attention. Thirdly, as opposed to a simple reflection of sensory volume or perturbation intensity, N1 appeared to represent a 'mismatch event detector' that alerted the CNS to unpredictable changes in the perturbation. Lastly, P2 did not appear to represent sensorimotor events related to ankle APRs, suggesting that the control of ankle APRs could mainly reside within subcortical structures. Future work will determine whether the cerebral cortex uses sensory information about the perturbation in order to influence immediate or future postural reactions. Future studies will also examine whether P2 responses might reflect cognitive events associated with postural control.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.352 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpace→Same topicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention→French-language works237,207→