↓ Skip to main content

Texting and Walking: Strategies for Postural Control and Implications for Safety

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
43 news outlets
blogs
4 blogs
twitter
129 X users
facebook
20 Facebook pages
googleplus
2 Google+ users
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
158 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
329 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
Texting and Walking: Strategies for Postural Control and Implications for Safety
Published in
PLOS ONE, January 2014
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0084312
Pubmed ID
Authors

Siobhan M. Schabrun, Wolbert van den Hoorn, Alison Moorcroft, Cameron Greenland, Paul W. Hodges

Abstract

There are concerns about the safety of texting while walking. Although evidence of negative effects of mobile phone use on gait is scarce, cognitive distraction, altered mechanical demands, and the reduced visual field associated with texting are likely to have an impact. In 26 healthy individuals we examined the effect of mobile phone use on gait. Individuals walked at a comfortable pace in a straight line over a distance of ∼8.5 m while; 1) walking without the use of a phone, 2) reading text on a mobile phone, or 3) typing text on a mobile phone. Gait performance was evaluated using a three-dimensional movement analysis system. In comparison with normal waking, when participants read or wrote text messages they walked with: greater absolute lateral foot position from one stride to the next; slower speed; greater rotation range of motion (ROM) of the head with respect to global space; the head held in a flexed position; more in-phase motion of the thorax and head in all planes, less motion between thorax and head (neck ROM); and more tightly organized coordination in lateral flexion and rotation directions. While writing text, participants walked slower, deviated more from a straight line and used less neck ROM than reading text. Although the arms and head moved with the thorax to reduce relative motion of the phone and facilitate reading and texting, movement of the head in global space increased and this could negatively impact the balance system. Texting, and to a lesser extent reading, modify gait performance. Texting or reading on a mobile phone may pose an additional risk to safety for pedestrians navigating obstacles or crossing the road.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 129 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 329 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 2 <1%
Brazil 2 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Uruguay 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 318 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 54 16%
Student > Bachelor 46 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 41 12%
Researcher 33 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 17 5%
Other 56 17%
Unknown 82 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 45 14%
Engineering 35 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 28 9%
Sports and Recreations 28 9%
Psychology 22 7%
Other 75 23%
Unknown 96 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 467. 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 15 July 2020.
All research outputs
#57,765
of 25,382,360 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#963
of 220,430 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#438
of 312,717 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#29
of 5,583 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,360 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 220,430 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
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 312,717 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,583 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.