ArticleScientific reports2026
Acute effect of continuous perturbations of the base of support on reactive balance response.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Unexpected perturbations (UP) of the support base challenge balance control and require effective reactive postural mechanisms. Continuous perturbations (CPs) of the base of support also affect postural stability but their influence on reactive postural mechanisms is unclear. This study investigated the acute effects of sine-wave (SIN) and random-wave (RND) CPs on reactive postural control, and the impact of prior perturbation exposure on the subsequent static standing (ST). Twenty-seven participants (21.56 ± 0.25 years) performed a perturbation-based protocol on an electrically driven platform. A force plate was positioned on the movable platform to calculate the center of pressure (CoP) trajectory. Five 30-s SIN and RND CPs, as well as a control condition (CTRL) without CP, were administered in a randomized order, each followed by either an UP or no perturbation (NUP) in randomized and counterbalanced sub-trials. Balance performance during CPs, UP, and ST was assessed via CoP velocity and displacement, while Sample Entropy (SampEn) and Power Spectral Density (PSD) analyzed postural control mechanisms during ST. Both SIN and RND CPs enhanced (p < .01) reactive balance performance during UP compared to CTRL. Static balance performance deteriorated (p < .01) following perturbation exposure versus CTRL. SampEn decreased (p < .05) across all post-perturbation conditions, indicating a shift from automatic to voluntary control, with more pronounced reductions following the RND condition. PSD analysis revealed general post-perturbation reweighting toward proprioceptive myotatic and plantar cutaneous contributions (p < .05) which was accentuated after RND compared to SIN and CTRL. Results suggest that both predictable (SIN) and unpredictable (RND) CPs enhance reactive balance in the subsequent UP, likely by potentiating sensory feedback and adaptive motor responses. Conversely, the worsening of static balance performance appears related to the temporal proximity to the preceding perturbation, regardless of perturbation type.
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.