ArticleExperimental brain research2025
In a visual inverted pendulum balancing task avoiding impending falls gets harder as we age.
Article in Experimental brain research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Super-additive multi-dimensional self-balancing deficit: implication for flight mishaps and falling.Experimental brain research · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Younger adults (YA) and older adults (OA) used a joystick to stabilize an unstable visual inverted pendulum (VIP) with a fundamental frequency (.27 Hz) of half that of bipedal human sway. Their task was to keep the VIP upright and to avoid ± 60° "fall" boundaries. Both age groups were tested with joystick gains and delays simulating age-related muscle strength and reflex slowing, respectively. In previous VIP and analogous self-balancing tasks, we observed a mixture of discrete corrective commands toward the balance point and destabilizing commands toward an impending fall. We hypothesized that (1) OA would fall more than YA, (2) traditional whole-trial stability and variability measures would differ across age groups and VIP conditions, and (3) different dynamics of corrective and destabilizing commands would discriminate falling from recovery. Results: (i) Traditional whole-trial performance metrics of fall incidence and the variance of position and velocity were worse in OA than YA and worse with longer delays and excessive joystick gains; (ii) OA made fewer corrective and more destabilizing commands than YA only when falling was imminent; (iii) when falls were imminent, a logistic model fit the percentage of inactive, corrective, and destabilizing commands as a function of time left to fall; and (iv) OA were like YA in switching between inaction and action, but exhibited less frequent and less prompt corrective commands than destabilizing commands relative to YA. We discuss whether such a decision-like process may also operate in a bipedal stance.
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.