ArticlePloS one2020
Subthreshold stochastic vestibular stimulation affects balance-challenged standing and walking.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy of nGVS to improve postural stability in people with bilateral vestibulopathy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2022Pooled it
- Quantifying Changes in Balance, Gait, Fall Risk, and Sensory Reweighting in Older Adults Following Multi-Session Electrical Vestibular Stimulation Therapy.Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
- Standardizing Stimulus Parameters for Noisy Galvanic Vestibular Stimulation.Journal of audiology & otology · 2026Review
- Optimizing noisy galvanic vestibular stimulation (nGVS) for postural control: methodological considerations when individualizing the signal for people with bilateral vestibulopathy.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Article
- Scoping out noisy galvanic vestibular stimulation: a review of the parameters used to improve postural control.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2023Review
- Effect of galvanic vestibular stimulation applied at the onset of stance on muscular activity and gait cycle duration in healthy individuals.Frontiers in neural circuits · 2022Article
- No evidence for stochastic resonance effects on standing balance when applying noisy galvanic vestibular stimulation in young healthy adults.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Cortical Effects of Noisy Galvanic Vestibular Stimulation Using Functional Near-Infrared Spectroscopy.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Subthreshold stochastic vestibular stimulation (SVS) is thought to enhance vestibular sensitivity and improve balance. However, it is unclear how SVS affects standing and walking when balance is challenged, particularly when the eyes are open. It is also unclear how different methods to determine stimulation intensity influence the effects. We aimed to determine (1) whether SVS affects stability when balance is challenged during eyes-open standing and overground walking tasks, and (2) how the effects differ based on whether optimal stimulation amplitude is derived from sinusoidal or cutaneous threshold techniques. Thirteen healthy adults performed balance-unchallenged and balance-challenged standing and walking tasks with SVS (0-30 Hz zero-mean, white noise electrical stimulus) or sham stimulation. For the balance-challenged condition, participants had inflatable rubber hemispheres attached to the bottom of their shoes to reduce the control provided by moving the center of pressure under their base of support. In different blocks of trials, we set SVS intensity to either 50% of participants' sinusoidal (motion) threshold or 80% of participants' cutaneous threshold. SVS reduced medial-lateral trunk velocity root mean square in the balance-challenged (p < 0.05) but not in the balance-unchallenged condition during standing. Regardless of condition, SVS decreased step-width variability and marginally increased gait speed when walking with the eyes open (p < 0.05). SVS intensity had minimal effect on the standing and walking measures. Taken together, our results provide insight into the effectiveness of SVS at improving balance-challenged, eyes-open standing and walking performance in healthy adults.
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.