Skip to main content
. 2010 Apr 28;104(2):1103–1118. doi: 10.1152/jn.00916.2009

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2.

Center-of-mass (CoM) responses to support surface (SS) stimuli. A: average cycle of CoM sway obtained by averaging across subjects and across all individual stimulus cycles showed dependency on stance width [intermalleolar distance (IMD)], stimulus amplitude, and visual availability [eyes open (EO) or eyes closed (EC)]. B: root-mean-square (RMS) CoM sway as a function of stance width for each stimulus amplitude (mean ± SD). C: CoM RMS sway as a function of SS stimulus amplitude for each stance width (mean ± SD).