ArticleExperimental brain research2026
Quantifying postural responses to galvanic vestibular stimulation for a four-electrode montage.
Article in Experimental brain research, 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
Standing balance is maintained through the integration of signals from the proprioceptive, visual, and vestibular systems. Galvanic vestibular stimulation (GVS) delivered through head-worn electrodes is increasingly used in clinical vestibular rehabilitation and immersive entertainment interfaces, but it is known to impact on-feet postural stability. Prior studies assessing balance and postural effects have predominantly focused on bilateral mastoid-based uniaxial GVS paradigms. Limited research has characterized balance metrics under multiaxial GVS configurations using four-electrode montages generating multiple directional stimulation paradigms. Standing balance was assessed in healthy participants with eyes closed using a dual force-plate system to record center-of-pressure (COP) dynamics. Participants were exposed to six randomized GVS stimulation conditions across four electrodes placed on the left and right mastoids, center forehead, and nape of the neck, while static, dynamic sway, and velocity-based COP features were extracted to characterize postural responses. GVS significantly altered static, dynamic sway, and velocity-based balance measures compared with the Null condition across six stimulation paradigms. All GVS stimulations increased COP displacement, sway length, sway area, and peak velocities, while reducing sway density metrics across mediolateral (ML) and anteroposterior (AP) axes. These findings provide an early quantitative characterization of postural responses to an unconventional GVS montage and create a foundation for predicting body motion during multiaxial vestibular stimulations. Such insights are important for the safe application of GVS in standing and ambulatory contexts, including clinical vestibular rehabilitation and immersive simulation environments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42536151What 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.