Trial reportSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Less Vibrotactile Feedback Is Effective to Improve Human Balance Control during Sensory Cues Alteration.
Trial report in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
- Does vibrotactile biofeedback for postural control interfere with cognitive processes?Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
For individuals with altered sensory cues, vibrotactile feedback improves their balance control. However, should vibrotactile feedback be provided every time balance control is compromised, or only one-third of the time their balance is compromised? We hypothesized that vibrotactile feedback would improve balance control more when provided every time their balance is compromised. Healthy young adults were randomly assigned to two groups: group 33% feedback (6 males and 6 females) and group 100% feedback (6 males and 6 females). Vibrotactile feedbacks related to the body's sway angle amplitude and direction were provided, while participants stood upright on a foam surface with their eyes closed. Then, we assessed if balance control improvement lasted when the vibrotactile feedback was removed (i.e., post-vibration condition). Finally, we verified whether or not vibrotactile feedback unrelated to the body's sway angle and direction (sham condition) altered balance control. The results revealed no significant group difference in balance control improvement during vibrotactile feedback. Immediately following vibrotactile feedback, both groups reduced their balance control commands; body sway velocity and the ground reaction forces variability decreased. For both groups, unrelated vibrotactile feedback worsened balance control. These results confirmed that participants processed and implemented vibrotactile feedback to control their body sways. Less vibrotactile feedback was effective in improving balance control.
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.