ArticleThe Journal of experimental biology2025
Detecting artificially impaired balance in human locomotion: metrics, perturbation effects and detection thresholds.
Article in The Journal of experimental biology, 2025. 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.
- Estimating and interpreting how humans prioritize multiple movement goals during walking.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Runners with lower dynamic stability exhibit better running economy.Scientific reports · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Measuring balance is important for detecting impairments and developing interventions to prevent falls, but there is no consensus on which method is most effective. Many balance metrics derived from steady-state walking data have been proposed, such as step-width variability, step-time variability, foot placement predictability, maximum Lyapunov exponent and margin of stability. Recently, perturbation-based metrics such as center of mass displacement have also been explored. Perturbations typically involve unexpected disturbances applied to the subject. In this study we collected walking data from 10 healthy human subjects while walking normally and while impairing balance with ankle braces, eye-blocking masks and pneumatic jets on their legs. In some walking trials we also applied mechanical perturbations to the pelvis. We obtained a comprehensive biomechanics dataset and compared the ability of various metrics to detect impaired balance using steady-state walking and perturbation recovery data. We also compared metric performance using thresholds informed by data from multiple subjects versus subject-specific thresholds. We found that step-width variability, step-time variability and foot placement predictability, using steady-state data and subject-specific thresholds, detected impaired balance with the highest accuracy (≥86%), whereas other metrics were less effective (≤68%). Incorporating perturbation data did not improve accuracy of these metrics, although this comparison was limited by the small amount of perturbation data included and analyzed. Subject-specific baseline measurements improved the detection of changes in balance ability. Thus, in clinical practice, taking baseline measurements might improve the detection of impairment due to aging or disease progression.
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.