Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30483209›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in neurology2018

Potential Mechanisms of Sensory Augmentation Systems on Human Balance Control.

Kathleen H Sienko, Rachael D Seidler, Wendy J Carender, Adam D Goodworth, Susan L Whitney, Robert J Peterka

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in neurology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07027215 (Impact of Augmented Sensory Feedback on Motor Control and Risk of Falling in Cancer-Related Neuropathic Patients"), which is not on this map. Cited by 52 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
52citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
13.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT07027215 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

Impact of Augmented Sensory Feedback on Motor Control and Risk of Falling in Cancer-Related Neuropathic Patients"

TypeinterventionalSponsorIsra University, JordanRan2024 to 2024Enrolled40ConditionsPhysical TherapyArmsGradual Intermittent pneumatic compression therapy (IPC),Balance excercises.PNF technique, selected physical therapy program as arm excercises
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

52 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 93 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Kathleen H SienkoDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States.
Rachael D SeidlerDepartment of Applied Physiology and Kinesiology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, United States.
Wendy J CarenderMichigan Balance Vestibular Testing and Rehabilitation, Department of Otolaryngology, Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, MI, United States.
Adam D GoodworthDepartment of Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Hartford, Hartford, CT, United States.
Susan L WhitneyDepartments of Physical Therapy and Otolaryngology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, United States.
Robert J PeterkaDepartment of Neurology, Oregon Health & Science University and National Center for Rehabilitative Auditory Research, VA Portland Health Care System, Portland, OR, United States.
Michigan Medicine · USOregon Health & Science University · USUniversity of Florida · USUniversity of Hartford · USUniversity of Michigan–Ann Arbor · USUniversity of Pittsburgh · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Numerous studies have demonstrated the real-time use of visual, vibrotactile, auditory, and multimodal sensory augmentation technologies for reducing postural sway during static tasks and improving balance during dynamic tasks. The mechanism by which sensory augmentation information is processed and used by the CNS is not well understood. The dominant hypothesis, which has not been supported by rigorous experimental evidence, posits that observed reductions in postural sway are due to sensory reweighting: feedback of body motion provides the CNS with a correlate to the inputs from its intact sensory channels (e.g., vision, proprioception), so individuals receiving sensory augmentation learn to increasingly depend on these intact systems. Other possible mechanisms for observed postural sway reductions include: cognition (processing of sensory augmentation information is solely cognitive with no selective adjustment of sensory weights by the CNS), "sixth" sense (CNS interprets sensory augmentation information as a new and distinct sensory channel), context-specific adaptation (new sensorimotor program is developed through repeated interaction with the device and accessible only when the device is used), and combined volitional and non-volitional responses. This critical review summarizes the reported sensory augmentation findings spanning postural control models, clinical rehabilitation, laboratory-based real-time usage, and neuroimaging to critically evaluate each of the aforementioned mechanistic theories. Cognition and sensory re-weighting are identified as two mechanisms supported by the existing literature.

Indexed as

balancebalance prosthesisbiofeedbacksensory augmentationsensory reweightingsensory substitution

Identifiers

PMID30483209
PMCPMC6240674
OpenAlexW2901684205

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.