ArticleHuman movement science2019
Specificity and variability of trunk kinematics on a mechanical horse.
Article in Human movement science, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effects of Equine-Assisted Therapies or Horse-Riding Simulators on Chronic Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2020Pooled it
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
Abstract
As perturbation training is gaining popularity, it is important to better understand postural control during complex three-dimensional stimuli. One clinically relevant and commonly used three-dimensional stimulus is found in hippotherapy and simulated hippotherapy on a mechanical horse. We tested nine healthy participants on a horse simulator, measured head and trunk kinematics, and characterized data in time (root-mean-square and variability) and frequency (amplitude spectra, gains, and phases) domains. We addressed three fundamental questions: 1) What is the specificity of postural responses to the simulator? 2) Which plane of motion is associated with the most and least variability (repeatable movements across repeated stimuli and across participants)? 3) To what extent are postural responses influenced by different degrees of stability (addition of pelvis straps and trunk support)? We found head and trunk responses were highly specific to the three-dimensional simulator perturbation direction and frequency. Frontal plane responses had the least variability across repetitions and participants whereas transverse motion was most variable. Head motion was more variable than the trunk at low frequencies and exhibited a marked decrease in tilt in the sagittal plane. Finally, the inclusion of pelvis straps had minimal effect on kinematics at low frequencies but altered higher frequencies; whereas added trunk support reduced head and trunk responses to perturbations and altered timing characteristics in all three planes. In conclusion, the present study suggests that frontal plane motion was under a high level of control, and results support the idea that specific head and trunk postural responses can be elicited from a complex three-dimensional stimuli, such as those found in hippotherapy. Researchers and clinicians can use results from this study to help interpret variability, implement mechanical adjustments to stability, and assess responses in pathological populations.
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.