ArticleExperimental brain research2017
Walking through an aperture with visual information obtained at a distance.
Article in Experimental brain research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A systematic review of perception of affordances for the person-plus-object system.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2023Pooled it
- Generalizing the optic flow equalization control law to an asymmetrical person-plus-object system.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2023Article
- Haptic feedback intervention decreases the spatial margin when older adults walk through a narrow space.Journal of physiological anthropology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The present study addressed whether visual information about the width of an aperture, obtained at a distance, would be sufficient to guide walking through the aperture without collision. For this purpose, we asked twelve young participants to walk while holding a 66-cm horizontal bar (bar length needs to be considered in order to perceive space necessary for crossing) and pass through an aperture without vision from 3 m in front of the aperture. Participants performed the tasks under each of four visual conditions, which differed in how vision was available: observation for 1.5 s while standing (static vision), observation during two forward steps and stopping (dynamic vision), observation during two forward steps and not stopping (dynamic vision with nonstop walking), and full vision. The results showed that, for narrow apertures (the widths were 0.8 and 1.0 times the bar length), the rate of collision without vision was about 40-50 %. This was mainly due to the maladaptive planning of body rotation. For the aperture 1.0 times the bar length, the percentage of trials with no body rotation was high, suggesting that at least some participants underestimated the space necessary for crossing. The location at which maximum body rotation occurred became farther from the obstacle, which may have been related to decreased movement speed. The availability of dynamic visual sampling during two forward steps did not contribute to improving collision avoidance. These results suggest that, while fundamental locomotor patterns are maintained even without online vision, both the underestimation of space required for crossing and the lack of fine-tuning of behavior prior to crossing increased collision rates.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27687556What 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.