ArticleFrontiers in human neuroscience2025
Arm movement strategies did not influence emotional state and static postural control during height-induced postural threat in children and young adults.
Article in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effects of height-induced postural threat on static and dynamic balance performance in healthy individuals: a systematic review with meta-analysis.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2025Pooled it
- Effects of restricted compared to free arms motion during standing and walking at height in healthy adolescents.Scientific reports · 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Empirical evidence in adults suggests that height-induced postural threat led to an increased reliance on an ankle control strategy (i.e., postural "stiffening" response). However, little is known whether children (i.e., due to ongoing maturation) show a similar pattern and how this is affected by the used arm movement strategy. Objective: The objective of this study was to compare the effects of different arm movement strategies on subjective and objective indicators related to standing at or above ground-level in children versus young adults. Methods: Twenty-six children (age: 9.8 ± 0.6 years) and 23 young adults (age: 24.7 ± 4.0 years) performed the tandem stance whilst standing at both ground-level (no threat) and 80 cm above ground (threat). During both, participants performed the task with free and restricted arm movements. Self-reported emotional state outcomes (i.e., balance confidence, fear of falling, perceived instability, conscious balance processing) were assessed and used as subjective indicators. Static balance outcomes (i.e., postural sway amplitude, frequency, and velocity) were measured and used as objective markers. Results: Irrespective of arm movement condition, children showed an increase in fear of falling and young adults a decrease in postural sway frequency when standing above ground than on ground level. Conclusion: The findings indicate that children are emotionally reactive but possibly not able to translate that into meaningful motor adaptation. Conversely, young adults react motorically but do not necessarily transfer that into an emotional response.
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.