Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41731926›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of physiology2026

Cortical responses to balance perturbations persist without active postural control.

Daphne N R Jansen, Lucas Mensink, Matto Leeuwis, Patrick A Forbes

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of physiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Daphne N R JansenDepartment of Neuroscience, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0004-9766-4790
Lucas MensinkDepartment of Neuroscience, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0004-3113-7162
Matto LeeuwisDepartment of Neuroscience, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0009-8728-0589
Patrick A ForbesDepartment of Neuroscience, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0230-9971

Funding

Dutch Research Council (NWO) | Exacte en Natuurwetenschappen VI.Vidi.203.066
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Standing balance relies on rapid reflexes as well as longer-latency subcortical and cortical processes to generate corrective responses to postural disturbances. EEG studies consistently identify two perturbation-evoked markers of cortical activity, the balance N1 and midfrontal theta power, associated with changes in body orientation and corrective actions. It remains unclear, however, whether these markers depend on the nervous system's active control of posture or reflect a more general evaluation of unexpected sensory input. We tested this by measuring cortical and muscle activity during support-surface perturbations while systematically manipulating whether or not participants actively controlled posture. In Experiment 1 (n = 10), participants experienced identical perturbations while either actively balancing or being passively moved through equivalent motion. Despite large reductions in balance-correcting muscle activity during passive trials (∼30-60%), N1 and theta responses persisted with only modest amplitude reductions (∼10%). In Experiment 2 (n = 16), we created passive conditions increasingly removed from balance by varying sensory feedback (footplate + whole-body vs. footplate-only motion) and motor engagement (isometric contraction vs. relaxed posture). Relaxed postures markedly suppressed muscle responses, yet cortical responses persisted, showing only modest modulation with sensory feedback (larger during footplate-only rotations) and no dependence on motor engagement. Together, these results indicate that N1 and midfrontal theta are not dependent on active postural control and persist even without matching sensory feedback or motor engagement. Rather than reflecting the generation or scaling of corrective actions, they index the early detection and evaluation of unexpected sensory events, consistent with prediction error or surprise processing. KEY POINTS: When standing balance is disturbed by a perturbation, the brain shows characteristic electrical responses called the balance N1 and theta activity, which are thought to contribute to balance-correcting actions. We tested whether these cortical responses depend on actively controlling posture or instead reflect the detection of unexpected motion irrespective of balance conditions. Participants stood in a robotic balance simulator and experienced identical perturbations while actively balancing or being passively moved, and when whole-body sensory feedback and muscle engagement were removed. The balance N1 and theta activity persisted in conditions where participants were not controlling their movement and even when whole-body sensory feedback and motor engagement were removed, whereas balance-correcting muscle responses were strongly diminished. This shows that cortical responses to balance perturbations are not specific to active balance control but probably represent the brain's detection and evaluation of unexpected sensory events.

Indexed as

Cerebral CortexPostural BalanceAdultElectroencephalographyFeedback, SensoryFemaleHumansMaleMuscle, SkeletalYoung Adultbalance controlbalance N1electroencephalographymidfrontal thetaprediction errorsurprise

Identifiers

PMID41731926
PMCPMC13178544

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.