ArticlePloS one2024
Balance recovery schemes following mediolateral gyroscopic moment perturbations during walking.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Morphology and control roles in perturbed standing recovery: a robotic study.Frontiers in robotics and AI · 2026Article
- Humans self-organise balance control strategies on a dynamic platform.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Muscular responses to upper body mediolateral angular momentum perturbations during overground walking.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Maintaining balance during human walking hinges on the exquisite orchestration of whole-body angular momentum (WBAM). This study delves into the regulation of WBAM during gait by examining balance strategies in response to upper-body moment perturbations in the frontal plane. A portable Angular Momentum Perturbator (AMP) was utilized in this work, capable of generating perturbation torques on the upper body while minimizing the impact on the center of mass (CoM) excursions. Ten participants underwent upper-body perturbations during either the mid-stance or touch-down moment in both ipsilateral and contralateral directions in the frontal plane. Our findings emphasize the predominant role of the hip strategy and foot placement as primary mechanisms for recovering from WBAM perturbations, regardless of the perturbation's timing or direction. Specifically, hip add/abduction torque and step width were significantly modulated following perturbations during the stance and swing phases, respectively, to reject frontal-plane balance threats. The knee and ankle torque modulation were not found to be effective in the recovery process. Additionally, we observed that recovery from WBAM perturbations occurs promptly within the same stride in which the perturbation occurs, unlike other perturbation scenarios, such as platform translation. These insights have the potential to enhance the development of assistive devices and more robust controllers for bipedal robots.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.