Literature DB >> 11160493

Effect of stance width on multidirectional postural responses.

S M Henry1, J Fung, F B Horak.   

Abstract

The effect of stance width on postural responses to 12 different directions of surface translations was examined. Postural responses were characterized by recording 11 lower limb and trunk muscles, body kinematics, and forces exerted under each foot of 7 healthy subjects while they were subjected to horizontal surface translations in 12 different, randomly presented directions. A quasi-static approach of force analysis was done, examining force integrals in three different epochs (background, passive, and active periods). The latency and amplitude of muscle responses were quantified for each direction, and muscle tuning curves were used to determine the spatial activation patterns for each muscle. The results demonstrate that the horizontal force constraint exerted at the ground was lessened in the wide, compared with narrow, stance for humans, a similar finding to that reported by Macpherson for cats. Despite more trunk displacement in narrow stance, there were no significant changes in body center of mass (CoM) displacement due to large changes in center of pressure (CoP), especially in response to lateral translations. Electromyographic (EMG) magnitude decreased for all directions in wide stance, particularly for the more proximal muscles, whereas latencies remained the same from narrow to wide stance. Equilibrium control in narrow stance was more of an active postural strategy that included regulating the loading/unloading of the limbs and the direction of horizontal force vectors. In wide stance, equilibrium control relied more on an increase in passive stiffness resulting from changes in limb geometry. The selective latency modulation of the proximal muscles with translation direction suggests that the trunk was being actively controlled in all directions. The similar EMG latencies for both narrow and wide stance, with modulation of only the muscle activation magnitude as stance width changed, suggest that the same postural synergy was only slightly modified for a change in stance width. Nevertheless, the magnitude of the trunk displacement, as well as of CoP displacement, was modified based on the degree of passive stiffness in the musculoskeletal system, which increased with stance width. The change from a more passive to an active horizontal force constraint, to larger EMG magnitudes especially in the trunk muscles and larger trunk and CoP excursions in narrow stance are consistent with a more effortful response for equilibrium control in narrow stance to perturbations in all directions.

Entities:  

Keywords:  NASA Discipline Neuroscience; Non-NASA Center

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11160493     DOI: 10.1152/jn.2001.85.2.559

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Neurophysiol        ISSN: 0022-3077            Impact factor:   2.714


  40 in total

1.  Evidence for reflex and perceptual vestibular contributions to postural control.

Authors:  Ann M Bacsi; James G Colebatch
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 1.972

2.  Muscle spindle responses to horizontal support surface perturbation in the anesthetized cat: insights into the role of autogenic feedback in whole body postural control.

Authors:  Claire F Honeycutt; Paul Nardelli; Timothy C Cope; T Richard Nichols
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2012-06-06       Impact factor: 2.714

3.  Influence of stance width on frontal plane postural dynamics and coordination in human balance control.

Authors:  Adam D Goodworth; Robert J Peterka
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2010-04-28       Impact factor: 2.714

4.  Directional constraint of endpoint force emerges from hindlimb anatomy.

Authors:  Nathan E Bunderson; J Lucas McKay; Lena H Ting; Thomas J Burkholder
Journal:  J Exp Biol       Date:  2010-06-15       Impact factor: 3.312

5.  Biomechanical capabilities influence postural control strategies in the cat hindlimb.

Authors:  J Lucas McKay; Thomas J Burkholder; Lena H Ting
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2006-12-06       Impact factor: 2.712

6.  Coordination between postural and movement controls: effect of changes in body mass distribution on postural and focal component characteristics.

Authors:  Gilles Robert; Jean Blouin; Hélène Ruget; Laurence Mouchnino
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2007-03-13       Impact factor: 1.972

7.  The influence of natural body sway on neuromuscular responses to an unpredictable surface translation.

Authors:  Craig D Tokuno; Mark G Carpenter; Alf Thorstensson; Andrew G Cresswell
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2006-03-17       Impact factor: 1.972

8.  Responses to multi-directional surface translations involve redistribution of proximal versus distal strategies to maintain upright posture.

Authors:  Stephanie L Jones; Sharon M Henry; Christine C Raasch; Juvena R Hitt; Janice Y Bunn
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2008-02-26       Impact factor: 1.972

Review 9.  Cortical control of postural responses.

Authors:  J V Jacobs; F B Horak
Journal:  J Neural Transm (Vienna)       Date:  2007-03-29       Impact factor: 3.575

10.  The mechanical actions of muscles predict the direction of muscle activation during postural perturbations in the cat hindlimb.

Authors:  Claire F Honeycutt; T Richard Nichols
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2013-12-04       Impact factor: 2.714

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.