ArticleJournal of physical therapy science2016
Immediate effects of different frequencies of auditory stimulation on lower limb motor function of healthy people.
Article in Journal of physical therapy science, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Facilitating or disturbing? An investigation about the effects of auditory frequencies on prefrontal cortex activation and postural sway.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
[Purpose] The purpose of this study was to explore the immediate effects of different frequencies of auditory stimulation on the lower limb motor function of healthy people. [Subjects and Methods] The subjects were 7 healthy people (5 males and 2 females). The subjects' lower limb function was measured without auditory stimulation (control), and with auditory stimulation of 500, 1,000, 1,500, and 2,000 Hz. The measured parameters were maximum knee extension torque, average knee extension torque, the Timed Up and Go test (TUG) time, Functional Reach (FR), and the 10-meter walking time. [Results] The TUG times of 500, 1,500, and 2,000 Hz auditory stimulation showed significant decreases compared to the control. The 10-m walking times of 1,000 and 2,000 Hz auditory stimulation showed significant decreases compared to the control. [Conclusion] The results show that auditory stimulation improved the TUG and 10-meter walking times of healthy people and that different frequencies of auditory stimulation had different effects on lower limb motor function.
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.