ArticlePloS one2025
Effects of chewing on postural learning: An experimental pre-post intervention study.
Article in PloS one, 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.
- Subject-specific stability of toothbrushing performance: insights from dynamic time warping and phenotype analysis.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In 16 healthy volunteers (age 42-69 years, 8 females) we investigated chewing effects on postural learning. Initially, the Centre of Pressure (CoP) position in bipedal stance was recorded (1 minute) in 4 conditions: Hard support (HS)-Open Eyes (OE), HS-Closed Eyes (CE), Soft Support (SS)-OE, SS-CE. Following 2 minutes of Chewing (C, n = 8 subjects, 4 females) or rhythmic Hand Grip (HG, n = 8 subjects, 4 females), 10 unipedal stance test (1 minute) were performed for 30 minutes in both groups in HS-OE, with a progressive decrease in CoP Velocity and Path Length. Since the 95% Area of body sway decreased only in the HG group, the Length in Function of Surface (LFS, indicative of balance energy expenditure), increased in the HG and remained constant in the C group. Soon after and 5 hours post-training, bipedal stance tests were performed for 8 minutes, in the same order as before. In both groups, the changes in unipedal stance parameters were found persistent 5 hours post-training. In SS-OE condition of bipedal stance, CoP Velocity was reduced and 95% Area increased by postural training, in the HG and C group, respectively. These modifications were significantly correlated to the corresponding changes in unipedal stance and led to a LSF decrease in the C group. In conclusion, the CoP Velocity during unipedal training was not affected by the previous motor activities. Chewing allowed for a larger compliance concerning the extent of CoP oscillation. Postural training in unipedal stance seem to favour the development of modifications in bipedal stance, according to the conditioning activity. Chewing before a postural training promotes a postural strategy characterized by a constant and a lower energy cost in unipedal and bipedal stance, respectively. Further experiments are necessary to verify whether such a change may promote a more secure balance in trained people.
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.