ArticleThe Journal of experimental biology2022
The effects of physical and temporal certainty on human locomotion with discrete underfoot perturbations.
Article in The Journal of experimental biology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Proactive adjustments to cued gait perturbations in people with and without chronic stroke.Journal of neurophysiology · 2026Article
- Effects of unexpected underfoot perturbations during turning on measures of mediolateral stability and corresponding recovery strategies.The Journal of experimental biology · 2026Article
- Proactive adjustments to cued gait perturbations in people with and without chronic stroke.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Stroke impairs the proactive control of dynamic balance during predictable treadmill accelerations.Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2025Article
- Consequences of changing planned foot placement on balance control and forward progress.Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Foot placement can be selected to anticipate upcoming perturbations, but it is unclear how this anticipatory strategy is influenced by available response time or precise knowledge of the perturbation's characteristics. This study investigates anticipatory and reactive locomotor strategies for repeated underfoot perturbations with varying levels of temporal certainty, physical certainty, and available response time. Thirteen healthy adults walked with random underfoot perturbations from a mechanized shoe. Temporal certainty was challenged by presenting the perturbations with or without warning. Available response time was challenged by adjusting the timing of the warning before the perturbation. Physical certainty was challenged by making perturbation direction (inversion or eversion) unpredictable for certain conditions. Linear-mixed effects models assessed the effect of each condition on the percentage change of margin of stability and step width. For perturbations with one stride or less of response time, we observed few changes to step width or margin of stability. As response time increased to two strides, participants adopted wider steps in anticipation of the perturbation (P=0.001). Physical certainty had little effect on gait for the step of the perturbation, but participants recovered normal gait sooner when the physical nature of the perturbation was predictable (P<0.001). Despite having information about the timing and direction of upcoming perturbations, individuals do not develop perturbation-specific feedforward strategies. Instead, they use feedback control to recover normal gait after a perturbation. However, physical certainty appears to make the feedback controller more efficient and allows individuals to recover normal gait sooner.
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.