MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413986905 · doi:10.1080/00222895.2025.2547727

Limited Interaction Between Vision and Proprioception on Centre of Pressure, Pelvis and Head Positions During Ankle or Neck Vibration in Walking: An Experimental Study

2025· article· en· W4413986905 on OpenAlex
Karim Jamal, Noémie C. Duclos, Chloé Rousseau, Youssef El Khamlichi, Cyril Duclos

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Motor Behavior · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProprioceptionAnklePhysical medicine and rehabilitationHead (geology)PelvisHead and neckPsychologyMedicineAnatomySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.321
Threshold uncertainty score0.385

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.377 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it