Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36246368›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2022

What is the contribution of voluntary and reflex processes to sensorimotor control of balance?

Amel Cherif, Jacopo Zenzeri, Ian Loram

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 24% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Amel CherifDepartment of Robotics, Brain and Cognitive Sciences, Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia, Genoa, Italy.
Jacopo ZenzeriDepartment of Robotics, Brain and Cognitive Sciences, Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia, Genoa, Italy.
Ian LoramCognitive Motor Function Research Group, Research Centre for Musculoskeletal Science & Sports Medicine, Dept of Life Sciences, Faculty of Science and Engineering, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Italian Institute of Technology · ITManchester Metropolitan University · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The contribution to balance of spinal and transcortical processes including the long-latency reflex is well known. The control of balance has been modelled previously as a continuous, state feedback controller representing, long-latency reflexes. However, the contribution of slower, variable delay processes has not been quantified. Compared with fixed delay processes (spinal, transcortical), we hypothesize that variable delay processes provide the largest contribution to balance and are sensitive to historical context as well as current states. Twenty-two healthy participants used a myoelectric control signal from their leg muscles to maintain balance of their own body while strapped to an actuated, inverted pendulum. We study the myoelectric control signal (u) in relation to the independent disturbance (d) comprising paired, discrete perturbations of varying inter-stimulus-interval (ISI). We fit the closed loop response, u from d, using one linear and two non-linear non-parametric (many parameter) models. Model M1 (ARX) is a generalized, high-order linear-time-invariant (LTI) process with fixed delay. Model M1 is equivalent to any parametric, closed-loop, continuous, linear-time-invariant (LTI), state feedback model. Model M2, a single non-linear process (fixed delay, time-varying amplitude), adds an optimized response amplitude to each stimulus. Model M3, two non-linear processes (one fixed delay, one variable delay, each of time-varying amplitude), add a second process of optimized delay and optimized response amplitude to each stimulus. At short ISI, the myoelectric control signals deviated systematically both from the fixed delay LTI process (M1), and also from the fixed delay, time-varying amplitude process (M2) and not from the two-process model (M3). Analysis of M3 (all fixed delay and variable delay response amplitudes) showed the variable (compared with fixed) delay process 1) made the largest contribution to the response, 2) exhibited refractoriness (increased delay related to short ISI) and 3) was sensitive to stimulus history (stimulus direction 2 relative to stimulus 1). For this whole-body balance task and for these impulsive stimuli, non-linear processes at variable delay are central to control of balance. Compared with fixed delay processes (spinal, transcortical), variable delay processes provided the largest contribution to balance and were sensitive to historical context as well as current states.

Indexed as

balanceintermittent controlpostural controlreflexrefractorinessvoluntary

Identifiers

PMID36246368
PMCPMC9557221
OpenAlexW4298000255

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.