2003
DOI: 10.1016/s0304-3940(02)01297-1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Postural instability enhances motor responses to transcranial magnetic stimulation in humans

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

6
50
0
1

Year Published

2010
2010
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
5
3
2

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 100 publications
(57 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
6
50
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…For example, if two tasks are concurrently conducted, with the primary task comprising postural control and the secondary task cognitive or motor information processing, a decrement in performance of one or both tasks can be observed due to the brain's limited information processing capacity ('central overload') [38] . Less resources are required for relatively undemanding postural tasks such as sitting or standing on stable surfaces, whereas attentional demands are increased when individuals are walking [39,40] . The most com- monly used explanation for posture-cognition DT interference is that these tasks compete in parallel for one or more resource pools ('crosstalk' or 'neural structure theory'), or else serially engage common input/output mechanisms ('bottleneck theory') [38,41] .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, if two tasks are concurrently conducted, with the primary task comprising postural control and the secondary task cognitive or motor information processing, a decrement in performance of one or both tasks can be observed due to the brain's limited information processing capacity ('central overload') [38] . Less resources are required for relatively undemanding postural tasks such as sitting or standing on stable surfaces, whereas attentional demands are increased when individuals are walking [39,40] . The most com- monly used explanation for posture-cognition DT interference is that these tasks compete in parallel for one or more resource pools ('crosstalk' or 'neural structure theory'), or else serially engage common input/output mechanisms ('bottleneck theory') [38,41] .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For instance, loss of cutaneous sensation may lead to less stable posture and locomotion (Courtemanche et al 1996;Dingwell and Cavanagh 2001;Meyer et al 2004;Perry et al 2000;Taylor et al 2004). In addition, support surface may also be included as a component of our ego space in a similar way as external objects and tools can be included in our body scheme (Iriki et al 1996;Ivanenko et al 1997;Pearson and Gramlich 2010;Solopova et al 2003;Wright and Horak 2007). The tactile information from the main supporting areas of the foot is also used by the brain for perceptual purposes and can evoke strong kinesthetic illusions (Roll et al 2002), vibrotactile thresholds being lower in the ball and arch of the sole than in the heel and toe regions (Gravano et al 2011;Inglis et al 2002).…”
Section: Postural Responses To Toe and Mt Perturbationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Nevertheless, the functional role of specific groups of sensory receptors in regulating human locomotion is still uncertain because they cannot be easily separated since they interact with each other and with central rhythm-generating centers in a complex manner. In addition, support surface and contact with a ground may also be included as components of our ego space in a similar way as external objects and tools can be included in our body scheme (Berti & Frassinetti, 2000;Iriki, Tanaka, & Iwamura, 1996;Ivanenko, Levik, Talis, & Gurfinkel, 1997;Solopova, Kazennikov, Deniskina, Levik, & Ivanenko, 2003).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%