| Title |
Effect of explicit visual feedback distortion on human gait
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, April 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1743-0003-11-74 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Seung-Jae Kim, Dieudonne Mugisha |
| Abstract |
Gait rehabilitation often utilizes correction of stepping movements, and visual feedback is one of the interactive forms that can be used for rehabilitation. We presented a paradigm called visual feedback distortion in which we manipulated the visual representation of step length. Our previous work showed that an implicit distortion of visual feedback of step length entails unintentional modulations in the subjects' gait spatial pattern. Even in the presence of cognitive load through a distraction task, distortion of visual feedback still induced modulation of gait step length. In the current study, subjects were aware of the imposed distortion of visual feedback and they were instructed to maintain their natural gait symmetric pattern during trials. We then studied whether such an explicit "visual feedback distortion" would still influence gait spatial pattern. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Portugal | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 60 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 10% |
| Researcher | 5 | 8% |
| Professor | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 6 | 10% |
| Unknown | 23 | 37% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Engineering | 9 | 15% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 10% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 10% |
| Sports and Recreations | 5 | 8% |
| Neuroscience | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 8 | 13% |
| Unknown | 24 | 39% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 12 April 2017.
All research outputs
#16,721,208
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
#885
of 1,413 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#140,114
of 242,065 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
#21
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,413 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 242,065 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.