ArticleThe Journal of experimental biology2026
The impact of visual perturbations on balance control during walking.
Article in The Journal of experimental biology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Visual perturbations may lead to an illusory self-motion and affect balance control. We studied the effects of different visual perturbations in 16 healthy young participants walking on a treadmill, by assessing foot placement and centre of mass (CoM) states. Three different visual perturbations were applied: fixating on a stationary target while the background moved to the right (MB), tracking the target moving rightward over a stationary background with head rotation (MT-HR), and tracking the moving target with eye movement only (MT-EM). Deviations of foot placement, CoM and trunk orientation due to the visual perturbation were assessed. Linear models were fitted to the kinematic data to predict foot placement from CoM state at mid-swing. Over the whole trial, MT-HR and MT-EM caused an increase in step width variability, CoM position variability and root mean square (RMS) foot placement error simultaneously. During visual perturbation epochs specifically, in MB, a left deviation of foot and CoM trajectories was observed from the start of the background movement. In MT-HR and MT-EM, a right deviation of foot and CoM trajectories was observed only after the target had stopped moving. Contrary to our expectations, foot placement error did not coincide with subsequent CoM deviations in the opposite direction. An obvious change in frontal plane trunk orientation was found only in MT-HR. While all visual perturbations affected control of the CoM trajectory in the frontal plane, these effects appeared to be caused by effects on control of heading as well. Head rotation appeared to additionally disturb balance through a coupling with trunk orientation.
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.