ArticlePloS one2024
Prior uncertainty impedes discrete locomotor adaptation.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The impact of environmental uncertainty on locomotor adaptation remains unclear. Environmental uncertainty could either aid locomotor adaptation by prompting protective control strategies that stabilize movements to assist learning or impede adaptation by reducing error sensitivity and fostering hesitance to pursue corrective movements. To explore this, we investigated participants' adaptation to a consistent force field after experiencing environmental uncertainty in the form of unpredictable balance perturbations. We compared the performance of this group (Perturbation) to the adaptive performance of a group that did not experience any unpredictable perturbations (Non-Perturbation). Perturbations were delivered using a cable-driven robotic device applying lateral forces to the pelvis. We assessed whole-body center of mass (COM) trajectory (COM signed deviation), anticipatory postural adjustments (COM lateral offset), and first step width. The Perturbation group exhibited larger disruptions in COM trajectory (greater COM signed deviations) than the Non-Perturbation group when first walking in the force field. While the COM signed deviations of both groups decreased towards baseline values, only the Non-Perturbation group returned to baseline levels. The Perturbation groups COM signed deviations remained higher, indicating they failed to fully adapt to the force field before the end. The Perturbation group also did not adapt their COM lateral offset to counter the predictable effects of the force field as the Non-Perturbation group did, and their first step width increased more slowly. Our findings suggest that exposure to unpredictable perturbations impeded future sensorimotor adaptations to consistent perturbations.
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.