ArticlePloS one2026
Different stabilizing mechanisms but a common task-level aim in standing and walking.
Article in PloS one, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Intrinsic mechanisms and feedback control act together to stabilize the body in upright tasks. In unperturbed standing and walking, their combined effects can be captured by lumped stabilization models, relating delayed center of mass position and velocity information to current ground reaction forces. If and how lumped stabilization parameters change across these tasks is unclear. We applied a stabilization model to estimate and compare stabilization between unperturbed standing and walking. Fifteen healthy young participants (21 ± 4 yrs, 63 ± 9 kg, 1.70 ± 0.10 m, 13 females, 2 males) walked at 1.25 m/s for 5 minutes, and performed 3 different standing tasks: normal standing, unipedal standing, and step posture for 1 minute, repeated 5 times. Whole-body kinematics and ground reaction forces were collected and used to fit the stabilization model and estimate the effective delay and lumped gains. Only small differences were found between standing tasks. Model fits were significantly higher in standing than in walking. ML effective delays were significantly longer in walking than in standing, whereas AP delays were comparable. The stabilization gains varied significantly across tasks and directions. The lumped position gains in most tasks exceeded critical stiffness, except for the mean values in walking, which were lower than the critical stiffness. Lumped velocity gains were all at under-damped level. The ratio of lumped position to velocity gains in standing were consistently close to human body's eigenfrequency (gl) as predicted by the extrapolated center of mass concept. In walking, the ratio was close to the eigenfrequency during phases in which stabilization was significant. Our findings suggest that stabilization is organized at the task level, with lumped effects of all stabilizing mechanisms acting to preserve a consistent weighting between position and velocity contributions across tasks, effectively regulating the CoM motion to follow a pendulum-like trajectory.
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.