ArticlePeerJ2023
The effects of age and central field loss on maintaining balance control when stepping up to a new level under time-pressure.
Article in PeerJ, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of Functional Impacts of Vision Impairment: Progress, Challenges and Future Directions.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026Review
- Links between central visual field loss and movement processing during walking.Gait & posture · 2026Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To investigate the effects of age and central field loss on the landing mechanics and balance control when stepping up to a new level under time-pressure. Methods: Eight older individuals with age-related macular degeneration (AMD), eight visually normal older and eight visually normal younger individuals negotiated a floor-based obstacle followed by a 'step-up to a new level' task. The task was performed under (1) no-pressure; (2) time-pressure: an intermittent tone was played that increased in frequency and participants had to complete the task before the tone ceased. Landing mechanics and balance control for the step-up task was assessed with a floor-mounted force plate on the step. Results: Increased ground reaction forces and loading rates were observed under time-pressure for young and older visual normals but not for AMD participants. Across conditions, loading rates and ground reaction forces were higher in young normals compared to older normals and AMD participants. Young visual normals also demonstrated 35-39% shorter double support times prior to and during the step-up compared to older normals and AMD participants. All groups shortened their double support times (31-40%) and single support times (7-9%) in the time-pressure compared to no-pressure condition. Regarding balance control, the centre-of-pressure displacement and velocity in the anterior-poster direction were increased under time-pressure for young and older visual normals but not for AMD participants. The centre-of-pressure displacement and velocity in the medial-lateral direction were decreased for the AMD participants under time-pressure but not for young and older visual normals. Conclusions: Despite walking faster, AMD participants did not adapt their landing mechanics under time-pressure (
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.