Experimental Brain Research

, Volume 151, Issue 3, pp 301–308 | Cite as

The broken escalator phenomenon

Aftereffect of walking onto a moving platform
  • R. F. Reynolds
  • A. M. Bronstein
Research Article


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.


Gait adaptation Aftereffect Knowledge–action dissociation 


  1. Anstis S (1995) Aftereffects from jogging. Exp Brain Res 103:476–478PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bedford FL (1999) Keeping perception accurate. Trends Cogn Sci 3:4-11PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bizzi E, Tresch MC, Saltiel P, d'Avella A (2000) New perspectives on spinal motor systems. Nat Rev Neurosci 1:101–108CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Carey DP (2001) Do action systems resist visual illusions? Trends Cogn Sci 5:109–113Google Scholar
  5. Carpenter MG, Frank JS, Silcher CP, Peysar GW (2001) The influence of postural threat on the control of upright stance. Exp Brain Res 138:210–218PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Cham R, Redfern MS (2002) Changes in gait when anticipating slippery floors. Gait Posture 15:159–171CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Clower DM, Boussaoud D (2000) Selective use of perceptual recalibration versus visuomotor skill acquisition. J Neurophysiol 84:2703–2708PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Durgin FH, Pelah A (1999) Visuomotor adaptation without vision? Exp Brain Res 127:12–18Google Scholar
  9. Gordon CR, Fletcher WA, Melvill JG, Block EW (1995) Adaptive plasticity in the control of locomotor trajectory. Exp Brain Res 102:540–545PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Held R (1965) Plasticity in sensory-motor systems. Sci Am 213:84–94PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Jensen L, Prokop T, Dietz V (1998) Adaptational effects during human split-belt walking: influence of afferent input. Exp Brain Res 118:126–130CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Jurgens R, Boss T, Becker W (1999) Podokinetic after-rotation does not depend on sensory conflict. Exp Brain Res 128:563–567PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Karniel A, Mussa-Ivaldi FA (2002) Does the motor control system use multiple models and context switching to cope with a variable environment? Exp Brain Res 143:520–524Google Scholar
  14. Lackner JR, DiZio P (1994) Rapid adaptationto Coriolis force perturbations of arm trajectory. J Neurophysiol 72:299–313PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Marigold DS, Patla AE (2002) Strategies for dynamic stability during locomotion on a slippery surface: effects of prior experience and knowledge. J Neurophysiol 88:339–353PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Norris SA, Greger BE, Martin TA, Thach WT (2001) Prism adaptation of reaching is dependent on the type of visual feedback of hand and target position. Brain Res 905:207–219CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Osu R, Franklin DW, Kato H, Gomi H, Domen K, Yoshioka T, Kawato M (2002) Short- and long-term changes in joint co-contraction associated with motor learning as revealed from surface EMG. J Neurophysiol 88:991–1004PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Pavol MJ, Pai YC (2002) Feedforward adaptations are used to compensate for a potential loss of balance. Exp Brain Res 145:528–538CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Pelah A, Barlow HB (1996) Visual illusion from running. Nature 381:283PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Pijnappels M, Bobbert MF, Dieen JH van (2001) Changes in walking pattern caused by the possibility of a tripping reaction. Gait Posture 14:11–18CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Scheidt RA, Dingwell JB, Mussa-Ivaldi FA (2001) Learning to move amid uncertainty. J Neurophysiol 86:971–985PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Shadmehr R, Mussa-Ivaldi FA (1994) Adaptive representation of dynamics during learning of a motor task. J Neurosci 14:3208–3224PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Weber KD, Fletcher WA, Gordon CR, Melvill JG, Block EW (1998) Motor learning in the "podokinetic" system and its role in spatial orientation during locomotion. Exp Brain Res 120:377–385PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Witney AG, Vetter P, Wolpert DM (2001) The influence of previous experience on predictive motor control. Neuroreport 12:649–653PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Wolpert DM, Flanagan JR (2001) Motor prediction. Curr Biol 11:729–732CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Academic Department of Neuro-otology, Division of Neuroscience and Psychological MedicineImperial College School of MedicineLondonUK

Personalised recommendations