Talk:Sense of balance
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
It seems to me quite unlikely that fluid would take several minutes to lose momentum, indeed I would expect it to be almost instantaneous given the size of the canals and likely viscosity. More likely this is similar to the persistence of vision where the optic sensors get 'tired'?--Rjstott 04:47, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Needs more info
Something should be added (by someone more qualified in neuroanatomy than me) regarding the whole of the white matter. Some types of cerebral lesions can disturb the perception of balance with no damage to the inner ear.
Equilibrioception as homeostasis?
Can Balance be Improved?
I have arrived at the Wiki page as I have been trying to find out if balance can be improved. It would seem like a reasonable thing to include in the main article as it is so fundamental to many sports (& to health). I am interested in it from a sports perspective. There are many exercises which claim to "improve your balance", but what I wonder is, have you just learnt to do that exercise? For example, if I learn to walk the tightrope, has my balance improved, or have I just learnt to walk the tightrope? Somewhat philosophical but there must be some measure of "balance ability" that is independent of the exercise you practised. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 22:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Balance is NOT primarily governed by vision, but by a differencial reference point presumed to be stationary with respect to the current momentum derived from the equilibrium sensors.
There is such a thing as blindfolded balance, and it is trained for in areas such as aviation and ice skating twirls. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 13:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Requested move 23 March 2016
New section System overview
Have placed this at the end of the page before Other animals. This section was recently added by a new editor who clearly hadn't looked into the Wiki guidelines. The references provided are not entered up correctly and some may not even be suitable; there is a repetition of certain bits of information; there is a lot of content completely uncited. Have placed this section further down, still keeping the heading but treating it more as a summary. The section is in real need of attention. Hardly any links are provided and it is quite badly written up. But there may be useful content to retrieve. Let's see if it can be made good. Or it may be felt that it should be removed for improvement first. --Iztwoz (talk) 19:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)