↓ Skip to main content

Efficacy of Stochastic Vestibular Stimulation to Improve Locomotor Performance During Adaptation to Visuomotor and Somatosensory Distortion

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Physiology, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Efficacy of Stochastic Vestibular Stimulation to Improve Locomotor Performance During Adaptation to Visuomotor and Somatosensory Distortion
Published in
Frontiers in Physiology, March 2018
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2018.00301
Pubmed ID
Authors

David R. Temple, Yiri E. De Dios, Charles S. Layne, Jacob J. Bloomberg, Ajitkumar P. Mulavara

Abstract

Astronauts exposed to microgravity face sensorimotor challenges affecting balance control when readapting to Earth's gravity upon return from spaceflight. Small amounts of electrical noise applied to the vestibular system have been shown to improve balance control during standing and walking under discordant sensory conditions in healthy subjects, likely by enhancing information transfer through the phenomenon of stochastic resonance. The purpose of this study was to test the hypothesis that imperceptible levels of stochastic vestibular stimulation (SVS) could improve short-term adaptation to a locomotor task in a novel sensory discordant environment. Healthy subjects (14 males, 10 females, age = 28.7 ± 5.3 years, height = 167.2 ± 9.6 cm, weight = 71.0 ± 12.8 kg) were tested for perceptual thresholds to sinusoidal currents applied across the mastoids. Subjects were then randomly and blindly assigned to an SVS group receiving a 0-30 Hz Gaussian white noise electrical stimulus at 50% of their perceptual threshold (stim) or a control group receiving zero stimulation during Functional Mobility Tests (FMTs), nine trials of which were done under conditions of visual discordance (wearing up/down vision reversing goggles). Time to complete the course (TCC) was used to test the effect of SVS between the two groups across the trials. Adaptation rates from the normalized TCCs were also compared utilizing exponent values of power fit trendline equations. A one-tailed independent-samples t-test indicated these adaptation rates were significantly faster in the stim group (n = 12) than the control (n = 12) group [t(16.18) = 2.00, p = 0.031]. When a secondary analysis was performed comparing "responders" (subjects who showed faster adaptation rates) of the stim (n = 7) group to the control group (n = 12), independent-samples t-tests revealed significantly faster trial times for the last five trials with goggles in the stim group "responders" than the controls. The data suggests that SVS may be capable of improving short-term adaptation to a locomotion task done under sensory discordance in a group of responsive subjects.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 46 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 15%
Student > Bachelor 7 15%
Researcher 5 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 9%
Lecturer 4 9%
Other 10 22%
Unknown 9 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 7 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 11%
Engineering 4 9%
Sports and Recreations 3 7%
Other 7 15%
Unknown 14 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 April 2018.
All research outputs
#19,531,444
of 24,880,704 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#7,938
of 15,288 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#246,569
of 335,030 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#228
of 418 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,880,704 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,288 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 335,030 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 418 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.