ArticleThe Journal of experimental biology2026
Effects of unexpected underfoot perturbations during turning on measures of mediolateral stability and corresponding recovery strategies.
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
- Update of
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Humans regularly walk across uneven terrain, which demands reactive control strategies to maintain forward progress and stability. While reactive control during walking has been well described during straight gait, it is unclear how reactive control differs during turning gait. Because turning is asymmetrical, perturbations to the inside and outside limbs may elicit different reactive adjustments. This study investigates how unexpected underfoot perturbations alter stability measures during turning and how individuals alter their foot placement to maintain stability after such perturbations. Seven healthy adults completed walking trials around a circular track while wearing mechanized shoes that pseudo-randomly delivered underfoot perturbations to either the inside or outside limb. We calculated mediolateral margin of stability corrected for centripetal acceleration (ML MoSC), step width and step length from kinematic data. Linear mixed effects models compared the effects of perturbation type (inversion versus eversion) and perturbed limb (inside versus outside) for each outcome measure. ML MoSC was affected by both perturbation type and perturbed limb, with larger changes observed during eversion and outside limb perturbations. Changes to step width and step time during two recovery steps after each perturbation were primarily influenced by the perturbed limb - outside limb perturbations elicited consistent changes during two recovery steps compared with one altered step after inside limb perturbations. Perturbations to the outside limb during turning disrupted gait longer than perturbations to the inside limb. This difference across perturbed limb may indicate that outside steps are more important than inside ones for maintaining and recovering stability during turning.
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.