Trial reportCerebellum (London, England)2024
Disentangling Cerebellar and Parietal Contributions to Gait and Body Schema: A Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Study.
Trial report in Cerebellum (London, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Body Schema plasticity of the arm: a systematic review of the methods and tasks.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Pooled it
- Gait variability development in autistic individuals across childhood and adulthood.Research square · 2026Article
- Influence of high-definition transcranial direct current stimulation to the parietal cortex on postural control: a single-blind randomized crossover study.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2025Article
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
Abstract
The overlap between motor and cognitive signs resulting from posterior parietal cortex (PPC) and cerebellar lesions can mask their relative contribution in the sensorimotor integration process. This study aimed to identify distinguishing motor and cognitive features to disentangle PPC and cerebellar involvement in two sensorimotor-related functions: gait and body schema representation. Thirty healthy volunteers were enrolled and randomly assigned to PPC or cerebellar stimulation. Sham stimulation and 1 Hz-repetitive-Transcranial-Magnetic-Stimulation were delivered over P3 or cerebellum before a balance and a walking distance estimation task. Each trial was repeated with eyes open (EO) and closed (EC). Eight inertial measurement units recorded spatiotemporal and kinematic variables of gait. Instability increased in both groups after real stimulation: PPC inhibition resulted in increased instability in EC conditions, as evidenced by increased ellipse area and range of movement in medio-lateral and anterior-posterior (ROMap) directions. Cerebellar inhibition affected both EC (increased ROMap) and EO stability (greater displacement of the center of mass). Inhibitory stimulation (EC vs. EO) affected also gait spatiotemporal variability, with a high variability of ankle and knee angles plus different patterns in the two groups (cerebellar vs parietal). Lastly, PPC group overestimates distances after real stimulation (EC condition) compared to the cerebellar group. Stability, gait variability, and distance estimation parameters may be useful clinical parameters to disentangle cerebellar and PPC sensorimotor integration deficits. Clinical differential diagnosis efficiency can benefit from this methodological approach.
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.