↓ Skip to main content

The broken escalator phenomenon

Overview of attention for article published in Experimental Brain Research, June 2003
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#37 of 3,413)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
31 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
googleplus
1 Google+ user
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
67 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
95 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
The broken escalator phenomenon
Published in
Experimental Brain Research, June 2003
DOI 10.1007/s00221-003-1444-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

R. F. Reynolds, A. M. Bronstein

Abstract

We investigated the physiological basis of the 'broken escalator phenomenon', namely the sensation that when walking onto an escalator which is stationary one experiences an odd sensation of imbalance, despite full awareness that the escalator is not going to move. The experimental moving surface was provided by a linear motor-powered sled, moving at 1.2 m/s. Sled velocity, trunk position, trunk angular velocity, EMG of the ankle flexors-extensors and foot-contact signals were recorded in 14 normal subjects. The experiments involved, initially, walking onto the stationary sled (condition Before). Then, subjects walked 20 times onto the moving sled (condition Moving), and it was noted that they increased their walking velocity from a baseline of 0.60 m/s to 0.90 m/s. After the moving trials, subjects were unequivocally warned that the platform would no longer move and asked to walk onto the stationary sled again (condition After). It was found that, despite this warning, subjects walked onto the stationary platform inappropriately fast (0.71 m/s), experienced a large overshoot of the trunk and displayed increased leg electromyographic (EMG) activity. Subjects were surprised by their own behaviour and subjectively reported that the 'broken escalator phenomenon', as experienced in urban life, felt similar to the experiment. By the second trial, most movement parameters had returned to baseline values. The findings represent a motor aftereffect of walking onto a moving platform that occurs despite full knowledge of the changing context. As such, it demonstrates dissociation between the declarative and procedural systems in the CNS. Since gait velocity was raised before foot-sled contact, the findings are at least partly explained by open-loop, predictive behaviour. A cautious strategy of limb stiffness was not responsible for the aftereffect, as revealed by no increase in muscle cocontraction. The observed aftereffect is unlike others previously reported in the literature, which occur only after prolonged continuous exposure to a sensory mismatch, large numbers of learning trials or unpredictable catch trials. The relative ease with which the aftereffect was induced suggests that locomotor adaptation may be more impervious to cognitive control than other types of motor learning.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 31 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 95 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Japan 1 1%
Germany 1 1%
Unknown 90 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 20%
Researcher 14 15%
Professor 12 13%
Student > Master 9 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 8 8%
Other 19 20%
Unknown 14 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 15 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 15 16%
Psychology 14 15%
Engineering 11 12%
Sports and Recreations 6 6%
Other 10 11%
Unknown 24 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 67. 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 25 January 2023.
All research outputs
#654,221
of 25,766,791 outputs
Outputs from Experimental Brain Research
#37
of 3,413 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#531
of 54,428 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Experimental Brain Research
#1
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,766,791 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,413 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 54,428 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 17 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 94% of its contemporaries.