| Title |
Differing effects of prosaccades and antisaccades on postural stability
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Experimental Brain Research, May 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00221-013-3519-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Agathe Legrand, Karine Doré Mazars, Julie Lazzareschi, Christelle Lemoine, Isabelle Olivier, Julien Barra, Maria Pia Bucci |
| Abstract |
The goal of the study was to examine the effect of different types of eye movements on postural stability. Ten healthy young adults (25 ± 3 years) participated in the study. Postural control was measured by the TechnoConcept© platform and recorded in Standard Romberg and Tandem Romberg conditions while participants performed five oculomotor tasks: two fixation tasks (central fixation cross, without and with distractors), two prosaccade tasks toward peripheral targets displayed 4° to the left or to the right of the fixation cross (reactive saccades induced by a gap 0 ms paradigm and voluntary saccades induced by an overlap 600 ms paradigm) and one antisaccade task (voluntary saccade made in the opposite direction of the visual target). The surface, the length, and the mean speed of the center of pressure were analyzed. We found that saccadic eye movements improved postural stability with respect to the fixation tasks. Furthermore, antisaccades were found to decrease postural stability compared to prosaccades (reactive as well as voluntary saccades). This result is in line with the U-shaped nonlinear model described by Lacour et al. (Neurophysiol Clin 38:411-421, 2008), showing that a secondary task performed during a postural task could increase (prosaccade task) or decrease (antisacade task) postural stability depending on its complexity. We suggest that the different degree of attentional resources needed for performing prosaccade or antisaccade tasks are, most likely, responsible for the different effect on postural control. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 64 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Korea, Republic of | 1 | 2% |
| Portugal | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 62 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 17% |
| Researcher | 7 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 11% |
| Professor | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 12 | 19% |
| Unknown | 16 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 20% |
| Neuroscience | 11 | 17% |
| Psychology | 9 | 14% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 3 | 5% |
| Unknown | 20 | 31% |
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 29 March 2014.
All research outputs
#20,219,902
of 22,743,667 outputs
Outputs from Experimental Brain Research
#2,905
of 3,220 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#168,694
of 193,581 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Experimental Brain Research
#48
of 52 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,743,667 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,220 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 193,581 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 52 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.