ArticleExperimental brain research2025
The effect of vibrotactile feedback on performance, perception and trust when balancing in different analog g-levels.
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 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.
- Super-additive multi-dimensional self-balancing deficit: implication for flight mishaps and falling.Experimental brain research · 2026Article
- Spatial disorientation and countermeasure training for next-generation aircraft: a review and recommendations.Frontiers in physiology · 2026Review
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
We studied orientation-dependent vibrotactile feedback (VF) as a countermeasure to spatial disorientation (SD) in spaceflight analog environments. In Experiment 1, participants balanced themselves in a dynamic motion simulator in Earth (1-g), Martian (0.38-g), Lunar (0.166-g) and 0-g analog conditions. One group (n = 13) had VF and the Control group (n = 13) did not. As g-level decreased, attitude control and subjective confusion worsened, for both groups. An exponential model fit both groups. The Control group became significantly worse than its 1-g baseline at 0.61 to 0.23-g. Based on these model fits, the VF group performed slightly better than Controls in 1-g, significantly better between 0.82 and 0.10-g, and their performance advantage increased towards 0-g. However, both groups reported similar levels of confusion in their sense of angular position and velocity across all g-levels. The VF group reported high trust in VF cueing as g-level decreased, despite their worsening performance and subjective confusion, highlighting a dissociation between the effectiveness of VF and cognitive trust in VF. Despite its benefits during hypo-g exposures, VF did not fully restore 1-g proficiency. In Experiment 2, we assessed whether a new group (n = 13) of participants given extended exposure with VF in the Lunar analog condition would achieve 1-g level performance. Initial performance and confusion deteriorated significantly relative to 1-g but then improved significantly until 1-g baselines were restored for most measures. However, signatures of SD, including attitude drift and positional confusion were still present. These results suggest that VF potentially would enhance dynamic vehicle control in spaceflight but may not fully eliminate SD.
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.