ArticlePhysiological reports2016
Mechanisms controlling human head stabilization during random rotational perturbations in the horizontal plane revisited.
Article in Physiological reports, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Sensory Adaptation Program for Individuals With Mal de Débarquement Syndrome: A Case Series.Journal of neurologic physical therapy : JNPT · 2026Article
- Multimodal biomarker based on temporal complexity of eye movements and pupil diameter in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.PLOS mental health · 2025Article
- Neck stabilization through sensory integration of vestibular and visual motion cues.Frontiers in neurology · 2023Article
- Rigid head-neck responses to unpredictable perturbations in patients with long standing neck pain does not change with treatment.PloS one · 2020Article
- Frequency-dependent deficits in head steadiness in patients with nonspecific neck pain.Physiological reports · 2019Article
- Mechanisms controlling human head stabilization during random rotational perturbations in the horizontal plane revisited.Physiological reports · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study repeats the experimental protocol for investigation of head stabilization in healthy humans, described by Keshner and Peterson (1995) but with a modification of the analysis. Head movements were considered with respect to the room instead of relative to the trunk. The aim was to investigate the approximate contribution of reflex and voluntary control across perturbing frequencies and conditions with modulation of visual information and mental attention and discuss the resulting outcome while comparing methods. Seventeen healthy individuals were asked to keep the head steady in space while subjected to pseudorandom rotational perturbations in the horizontal plane, firmly seated on an actuated chair. Both methods confirmed the results for gain in previous studies showing fair ability to keep the head steady in space below 1 Hz with vision. Compensation deteriorated when vision was removed and worsened further with addition of a mental task. Between 1 and 2 Hz, unity gain occurred between head and trunk movements, whereas above 2 Hz the head moved more than the trunk. For phase angles, the original method demonstrated a phase split occurring from ~1 Hz, a purely mathematical artifact that caused subjects with virtually identical movements to appear as significantly different. This artifact was eliminated by analyzing the head-room relative to trunk-room rather than head-trunk relative to trunk-room angles, thus preventing potentially erroneous interpretations of the results.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.