Back

Misalignment between perceived and actual ability on a balance beam walking task

Beech, S.; Geisler, C.; Creer, S.; Monoli, C.; Render, A. C.; Fino, P. C.

2025-11-14 physiology
10.1101/2025.11.10.687691 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Effective dynamic balance control is necessary to maintain stability, but it is an individuals self-perceived ability that ultimately determines movement selection. Accurate self-estimation of balance ability is therefore essential to ensure that movement choices align with true capability. This study examined individuals perception of their ability on a clinically standardized Narrowing Beam Walking Task (NBWT) to examine 1) the initial perception of balance ability before attempting the task, and 2) how experience completing the task improves the accuracy of self-perceived balance. Collegiate athletes provided self-estimates of performance at baseline (before any trials with the task), early-training (after completing two trials), and post-training (after a further 8 trials). Actual task performance was quantified using the final 8 trials. At baseline, athletes poorly estimated their ability: individuals with poorer task performance tended to overestimate their ability while higher-performing individuals tended to underestimate their ability. With practice, absolute estimation error significantly decreased, indicating that task-specific exposure facilitated recalibration to bring self-estimates of performance in closer alignment to actual performance. These effects were consistent across all tested sporting disciplines. These findings show that effective balance control and frequent engagement in similar, but unrelated balance tasks, does not facilitate accurate self-perception of performance on the NBWT. Instead, brief task-specific exposure was required to refine balance estimates. These findings have implications for balance testing and rehabilitation that seeks to improve mobility in populations whose misjudgments of balance ability are often associated with negative outcomes, such as falls.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Human Movement Science
13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
12.6%
2
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 16%
12.4%
3
Journal of Biomechanics
57 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
12.4%
4
Journal of Experimental Biology
249 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
6.7%
5
Frontiers in Sports and Active Living
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.2%
50% of probability mass above
6
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 25%
4.8%
7
Experimental Physiology
19 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.3%
8
European Journal of Applied Physiology
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.9%
9
Journal of Applied Physiology
29 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.6%
10
Gait & Posture
22 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.6%
11
Frontiers in Physiology
93 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.6%
12
Experimental Brain Research
46 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.1%
13
Physiological Reports
35 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.7%
14
Journal of The Royal Society Interface
189 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.6%
15
The Journal of Physiology
134 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
1.3%
16
Integrative Organismal Biology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.3%
17
Biology Open
130 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.2%
18
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 10%
1.2%
19
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise
15 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.1%
20
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
124 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.9%
21
Royal Society Open Science
193 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
22
npj Microgravity
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.9%
23
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 62%
0.6%
24
Function
15 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.6%
25
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
88 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.6%
26
Journal of Orthopaedic Research
19 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.6%