Limited Interaction Between Vision and Proprioception on Centre of Pressure, Pelvis and Head Positions During Ankle or Neck Vibration in Walking: An Experimental Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background By stimulating proprioceptive receptors, muscle vibration helps understand the crucial role of proprioception in gait control. From the literature, variability in responses during the stance phase across studies may be due to protocol differences, such as lighting conditions that affect visual information. This study aimed to investigate the interaction between vision and proprioceptive information from ankle and neck muscles over the gait cycle during treadmill walkingMethods Twenty-five healthy participants (aged 30 ± 5 years) walked on an instrumented treadmill under three visual conditions (eyes open, dim light and eyes closed) and three vibration conditions (no vibration, neck muscles and ankle plantar flexor muscles) in a randomised order. The centre of pressure (COP), pelvis and head positions were measured and analysed across three gait cycle phases (heel contact, midstance and toe-off). A mixed-effects model on ranks was used for analysis, with post-hoc Tukey corrections for significant interactionsResults No significant interaction was found between vibration conditions, different visual conditions, and the gait cycle on the COP, pelvis and head positions (p > 0.42). Neck muscle vibration caused a forward shift in the COP at heel contact (p = 0.0006) and midstance (p < 0.0001) and in pelvis and head positions throughout the gait cycle (p < 0.0001). Ankle muscle vibration had no significant effects (p > 0.4). Eye closure led to more pronounced gait reactions compared to eyes open or dim light at heel contact and toe-off (p = 0.0001)Discussion This study investigated the influence of vision and proprioception during walking by manipulating visual information (eyes open, dim light and eyes closed) and proprioceptive information (neck and ankle vibration). Under these specific experimental conditions, no clear interactive effects between vision and proprioception were observed. Instead, their contributions appeared at distinct moments of the stance phase: both modalities influenced gait control at heel contact, neck proprioception effects were more pronounced at midstance, and vision contributed more strongly at toe-off. These findings enhance understanding of sensory contributions during walking and support further exploration of vibration application protocols.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".