ArticleThe Journal of experimental biology2026
Vestibular and proprioceptive contributions to trunk stabilization differ across postural tasks and walking speeds.
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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Stabilizing upright posture of the trunk in humans relies on vestibular and proprioceptive afference. Previous studies found that the feedback responses to sensory afference vary between postures and tasks. We investigated whether and how vestibular and proprioceptive afference contribute to trunk stabilization during different postural tasks, and during walking at different speeds. Twelve healthy adults performed tasks in a random order - sitting, standing on the right foot or both feet, and treadmill walking at five speeds (0.8, 2.0, 3.2, 4.3 and 5.5 km h-1) - while exposed to unilateral muscle vibration on the right paraspinal muscles at the level of the second lumbar vertebra, or to a step-like electrical vestibular stimulation (EVS) with the anode behind the left ear. The mediolateral displacements of markers at the sixth thoracic (T6) level and the sacrum in the global coordinate system were used to evaluate the responses to sensory stimulation. No significant responses to EVS at the T6 and sacrum levels were found in sitting and standing. Responses to muscle vibration were significant and differed between unipedal standing compared with sitting and bipedal standing. The latter suggests a different interpretation of the sensation of muscle lengthening in these postures. During walking, the magnitude of the responses to both stimuli increased from very slow speeds to moderate speeds. From moderate to higher speeds, responses to muscle vibration decreased, whereas responses to EVS plateaued. These findings suggest speed-dependent modulation of vestibular and proprioceptive contributions in trunk stabilization during walking.
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.