ArticleExperimental brain research2018
Learning dynamic control of body yaw orientation.
Article in Experimental brain research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- The effect of vibrotactile feedback on performance, perception and trust when balancing in different analog g-levels.Experimental brain research · 2025Article
- Vibrotactile feedback as a countermeasure for spatial disorientation.Frontiers in physiology · 2023Article
- The role of spatial acuity in a dynamic balancing task without gravitational cues.Experimental brain research · 2022Article
- Crash Prediction Using Deep Learning in a Disorienting Spaceflight Analog Balancing Task.Frontiers in physiology · 2022Article
- The Importance of Being in Touch.Frontiers in neurology · 2021Review
- Roll tilt self-motion direction discrimination training: First evidence for perceptual learning.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2020Article
- Learning and long-term retention of dynamic self-stabilization skills.Experimental brain research · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
To investigate the role of gravitational cues in the learning of a dynamic balancing task, we placed blindfolded subjects in a device programmed with inverted pendulum dynamics about the yaw axis. Subjects used a joystick to try and maintain a stable orientation at the direction of balance during 20 100 s-long trials. They pressed a trigger button on the joystick to indicate whenever they felt at the direction of balance. Three groups of ten subjects each participated. One group balanced with their body and the yaw axis vertical, and thus did not have gravitational cues to help them to determine their angular position. They showed minimal learning, inaccurate indications of the direction of balance, and a characteristic pattern of positional drifting away from the balance point. A second group balanced with the yaw axis pitched 45° from the gravitational vertical and had gravity relevant position cues. The third group balanced with their yaw axis horizontal where they had gravity-dependent cues about body position in yaw. Groups 2 and 3 showed better initial balancing performance and more learning across trials than Group 1. These results indicate that in the absence of vision, the integration of transient semicircular canal and somatosensory signals about angular acceleration is insufficient for determining angular position during dynamic balancing; direct position-dependent gravity cues are necessary.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29508040What 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.