Literature DB >> 15654594

Differences in preferred reference frames for postural orientation shown by after-effects of stance on an inclined surface.

Joann Kluzik1, Fay B Horak, Robert J Peterka.   

Abstract

This study reports a postural after-effect of leaning that follows a period of stance on an inclined surface with eyes closed. This leaning after-effect maintained the body-to-surface relationship as if subjects still stood on the incline. We examined the incidence and robustness of the leaning after-effect in 51 healthy subjects. The location of the center of pressure (CoP) under the feet and the alignment of the trunk and legs were measured before, during and after blindfolded subjects stood on a 5 degrees toes-up inclined surface for 2.5 min. When the surface was inclined, all subjects stood with their trunk and legs aligned near to gravity-vertical, similar to the alignment adopted in the pre-incline period. When the surface returned to horizontal in the post-incline period, there was a continuum of postural alignment strategies across subjects. At one extreme, subjects leaned forward, with an average trunk lean near 5 degrees . The leaned posture decayed exponentially toward baseline postural alignment across a period of up to 5 min. At the other extreme, subjects did not lean in the post-incline period, but instead, stayed aligned near upright with respect to gravity. Subjects were highly consistent in their post-incline postural behaviors upon repeated testing over days to months and across different directions of surface inclination. Our results suggest that individuals have well-established, preferred, sensory strategies for controlling postural orientation when vision is not available. Subjects who leaned in the post-incline period appear to depend more on the geometry of the support surface as a reference frame and to rely more on proprioceptive information to extract kinematic relationships, whereas subjects who did not lean appear to depend more on gravity as a reference frame and to rely more on sensory information related to forces and load.

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15654594     DOI: 10.1007/s00221-004-2124-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Exp Brain Res        ISSN: 0014-4819            Impact factor:   1.972


  71 in total

1.  Judo, better than dance, develops sensorimotor adaptabilities involved in balance control.

Authors:  Philippe Perrin; Dominique Deviterne; Francine Hugel; Cyril Perrot
Journal:  Gait Posture       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 2.840

2.  Forward versus backward walking: transfer of podokinetic adaptation.

Authors:  G M Earhart; G M Jones; F B Horak; E W Block; K D Weber; W A Fletcher
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2001-10       Impact factor: 2.714

3.  Sensorimotor integration in human postural control.

Authors:  R J Peterka
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 2.714

4.  Somatic graviception.

Authors:  H Mittelstaedt
Journal:  Biol Psychol       Date:  1996-01-05       Impact factor: 3.251

5.  Patterns of center of presure migration during prolonged unconstrained standing.

Authors:  M Duarte; V M Zatsiorsky
Journal:  Motor Control       Date:  1999-01       Impact factor: 1.422

6.  The influence of head rotation on human upright posture during balanced bilateral vibration.

Authors:  V S Gurfinkel; Y P Ivanenko; Y S Levik
Journal:  Neuroreport       Date:  1995-12-29       Impact factor: 1.837

7.  Modification of human postural response to leg muscle vibration by electrical vestibular stimulation.

Authors:  F Hlavacka; M Krizková; F B Horak
Journal:  Neurosci Lett       Date:  1995-04-07       Impact factor: 3.046

8.  Aftereffects from jogging.

Authors:  S Anstis
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  1995       Impact factor: 1.972

9.  Somatosensory loss increases vestibulospinal sensitivity.

Authors:  F B Horak; F Hlavacka
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 2.714

10.  Differential sensitivity to static visual cues in the control of postural equilibrium in man.

Authors:  J Crémieux; S Mesure
Journal:  Percept Mot Skills       Date:  1994-02
View more
  44 in total

1.  Task-level feedback can explain temporal recruitment of spatially fixed muscle synergies throughout postural perturbations.

Authors:  Seyed A Safavynia; Lena H Ting
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2011-09-28       Impact factor: 2.714

2.  Postural reorientation does not cause the locomotor after-effect following rotary locomotion.

Authors:  Callum J Osler; Raymond F Reynolds
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2012-06-04       Impact factor: 1.972

3.  Podokinetic stimulation causes shifts in perception of straight ahead.

Authors:  John T Scott; Corey A Lohnes; Fay B Horak; Gammon M Earhart
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2010-11-13       Impact factor: 1.972

4.  Influence of vision on adaptive postural responses following standing on an incline.

Authors:  Gammon M Earhart; Josée M Henckens; Patricia Carlson-Kuhta; Fay B Horak
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2010-03-25       Impact factor: 1.972

5.  A role for terrain slope in orienting hippocampal place fields.

Authors:  Kathryn J Jeffery; Rakesh L Anand; Michael I Anderson
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2005-11-05       Impact factor: 1.972

6.  Differential integration of kinaesthetic signals to postural control.

Authors:  Brice Isableu; Nicolas Vuillerme
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2006-09-22       Impact factor: 1.972

7.  Auditory biofeedback substitutes for loss of sensory information in maintaining stance.

Authors:  Marco Dozza; Fay B Horak; Lorenzo Chiari
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2006-10-05       Impact factor: 1.972

8.  Adaptation of postural orientation to changes in surface inclination.

Authors:  Joann Kluzik; Robert J Peterka; Fay B Horak
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2006-10-13       Impact factor: 1.972

9.  Countering postural posteffects following prolonged exposure to whole-body vibration: a sensorimotor treatment.

Authors:  Olivier Oullier; Anne Kavounoudias; Cyril Duclos; Frédéric Albert; Jean-Pierre Roll; Régine Roll
Journal:  Eur J Appl Physiol       Date:  2008-10-31       Impact factor: 3.078

10.  Visual motion combined with base of support width reveals variable field dependency in healthy young adults.

Authors:  Jefferson W Streepey; Robert V Kenyon; Emily A Keshner
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2006-10-28       Impact factor: 1.972

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.