Literature DB >> 19263044

Control of roll and pitch motion during multi-directional balance perturbations.

Ursula Margareta Küng1, C G C Horlings, F Honegger, J E J Duysens, J H J Allum.   

Abstract

Does the central nervous system (CNS) independently control roll and pitch movements of the human body during balance corrections? To help provide an answer to this question, we perturbed the balance of 16 young healthy subjects using multi-directional rotations of the support surface. All rotations had pitch and roll components, for which either the roll (DR) or the pitch (DP) component were delayed by 150 ms or not at all (ND). The outcome measures were the biomechanical responses of the body and surface EMG activity of several muscles. Across all perturbation directions, DR caused equally delayed shifts (150 ms) in peak lateral centre of mass (COM) velocity. Across directions, DP did not cause equally delayed shifts in anterior-posterior COM velocity. After 300 ms however, the vector direction of COM velocity was similar to the ND directions. Trunk, arm and knee joint rotations followed this roll compared to pitch pattern, but were different from ND rotation synergies after 300 ms, suggesting an intersegmental compensation for the delay effects. Balance correcting responses of muscles demonstrated both roll and pitch directed components regardless of axial alignment. We categorised muscles into three groups: pitch oriented, roll oriented and mixed based on their responses to DR and DP. Lower leg muscles were pitch oriented, trunk muscles were roll oriented, and knee and arm muscles were mixed. The results of this study suggest that roll, but not pitch components, of balance correcting movement strategies and muscle synergies are separately programmed by the CNS. Reliance on differentially activated arm and knee muscles to correct roll perturbations reveals a dependence of the pitch response on that of roll, possibly due to biomechanical constraints, and accounts for the failure of DP to be transmitted equally in time across all limbs segments. Thus it appears the CNS preferentially programs the roll response of the body and then adjusts the pitch response accordingly.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19263044     DOI: 10.1007/s00221-009-1743-3

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


  27 in total

1.  Ankle and hip postural strategies defined by joint torques.

Authors:  C F Runge; C L Shupert; F B Horak; F E Zajac
Journal:  Gait Posture       Date:  1999-10       Impact factor: 2.840

Review 2.  Directional aspects of balance corrections in man.

Authors:  John H J Allum; Mark G Carpenter; Flurin Honegger
Journal:  IEEE Eng Med Biol Mag       Date:  2003 Mar-Apr

3.  Age-dependent variations in the directional sensitivity of balance corrections and compensatory arm movements in man.

Authors:  J H J Allum; M G Carpenter; F Honegger; A L Adkin; B R Bloem
Journal:  J Physiol       Date:  2002-07-15       Impact factor: 5.182

4.  Ratio of shear to load ground-reaction force may underlie the directional tuning of the automatic postural response to rotation and translation.

Authors:  Lena H Ting; Jane M Macpherson
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2004-04-14       Impact factor: 2.714

5.  The effect of voluntary arm abduction on balance recovery following multidirectional stance perturbations.

Authors:  Laura Grin; J Frank; John H J Allum
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2006-10-19       Impact factor: 1.972

6.  Unified theory regarding A/P and M/L balance in quiet stance.

Authors:  D A Winter; F Prince; J S Frank; C Powell; K F Zabjek
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  1996-06       Impact factor: 2.714

7.  Postural coactivation and adaptation in the sway stabilizing responses of normals and patients with bilateral vestibular deficit.

Authors:  E A Keshner; J H Allum; C R Pfaltz
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  1987       Impact factor: 1.972

8.  Muscle synergy organization is robust across a variety of postural perturbations.

Authors:  Gelsy Torres-Oviedo; Jane M Macpherson; Lena H Ting
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2006-06-14       Impact factor: 2.714

9.  Directional sensitivity of stretch reflexes and balance corrections for normal subjects in the roll and pitch planes.

Authors:  M G Carpenter; J H Allum; F Honegger
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  1999-11       Impact factor: 1.972

10.  Incorporating voluntary knee flexion into nonanticipatory balance corrections.

Authors:  Lars B Oude Nijhuis; Bastiaan R Bloem; Mark G Carpenter; John H J Allum
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2007-09-26       Impact factor: 2.714

View more
  5 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.  The effect of voluntary lateral trunk bending on balance recovery following multi-directional stance perturbations.

Authors:  U M Küng; C G C Horlings; F Honegger; J H J Allum
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2010-03-04       Impact factor: 1.972

3.  Segmental specificity in belly dance mimics primal trunk locomotor patterns.

Authors:  Marilee M Nugent; Theodore E Milner
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2016-12-28       Impact factor: 2.714

4.  Balance Adaptation While Standing on a Compliant Base Depends on the Current Sensory Condition in Healthy Young Adults.

Authors:  Stefania Sozzi; Marco Schieppati
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2022-03-25       Impact factor: 3.169

Review 5.  Slacklining: A narrative review on the origins, neuromechanical models and therapeutic use.

Authors:  Charles Philip Gabel; Bernard Guy; Hamid Reza Mokhtarinia; Markus Melloh
Journal:  World J Orthop       Date:  2021-06-18
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.