Matija Milosevic1, Kei Masani2, Meredith J Kuipers3, Hossein Rahouni4, Mary C Verrier5, Kristiina M V McConville6, Milos R Popovic7. 1. Institute of Biomaterials and Biomedical Engineering, University of Toronto, 164 College Street, Toronto M5S 3G9E, Ontario, Canada; Neural Engineering and Therapeutics Team, Lyndhurst Centre, Toronto Rehabilitation Institute,University Health Network, 520 Sutherland Drive, Toronto,M4G 3V9, Ontario, Canada. Electronic address: matija.milosevic@utoronto.ca. 2. Institute of Biomaterials and Biomedical Engineering, University of Toronto, 164 College Street, Toronto M5S 3G9E, Ontario, Canada; Neural Engineering and Therapeutics Team, Lyndhurst Centre, Toronto Rehabilitation Institute,University Health Network, 520 Sutherland Drive, Toronto,M4G 3V9, Ontario, Canada. Electronic address: k.masani@utoronto.ca. 3. Neural Engineering and Therapeutics Team, Lyndhurst Centre, Toronto Rehabilitation Institute,University Health Network, 520 Sutherland Drive, Toronto,M4G 3V9, Ontario, Canada; Department of Physiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, 1 King's College Circle, TorontoM5S 1A8, Ontario, Canada. Electronic address: m.kuipers@alum.utoronto.ca. 4. Institute of Biomaterials and Biomedical Engineering, University of Toronto, 164 College Street, Toronto M5S 3G9E, Ontario, Canada; Neural Engineering and Therapeutics Team, Lyndhurst Centre, Toronto Rehabilitation Institute,University Health Network, 520 Sutherland Drive, Toronto,M4G 3V9, Ontario, Canada. Electronic address: hossein.rouhani@utoronto.ca. 5. Neural Engineering and Therapeutics Team, Lyndhurst Centre, Toronto Rehabilitation Institute,University Health Network, 520 Sutherland Drive, Toronto,M4G 3V9, Ontario, Canada; Department of Physiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, 1 King's College Circle, TorontoM5S 1A8, Ontario, Canada; Department of Physical Therapy, University of Toronto, 500 University Avenue, TorontoM5G 1V7, Ontario, Canada. Electronic address: m.verrier@utoronto.ca. 6. Institute of Biomaterials and Biomedical Engineering, University of Toronto, 164 College Street, Toronto M5S 3G9E, Ontario, Canada; Neural Engineering and Therapeutics Team, Lyndhurst Centre, Toronto Rehabilitation Institute,University Health Network, 520 Sutherland Drive, Toronto,M4G 3V9, Ontario, Canada; Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Ryerson University, 350 Victoria Street, TorontoM5B 2K3, Ontario, Canada. Electronic address: kmcconvi@ee.ryerson.ca. 7. Institute of Biomaterials and Biomedical Engineering, University of Toronto, 164 College Street, Toronto M5S 3G9E, Ontario, Canada; Neural Engineering and Therapeutics Team, Lyndhurst Centre, Toronto Rehabilitation Institute,University Health Network, 520 Sutherland Drive, Toronto,M4G 3V9, Ontario, Canada; Department of Physical Therapy, University of Toronto, 500 University Avenue, TorontoM5G 1V7, Ontario, Canada. Electronic address: milos.popovic@utoronto.ca.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Individuals with cervical spinal cord injury usually sustain impairments to the trunk and upper and lower limbs, resulting in compromised sitting balance. The objectives of this study were to: 1) compare postural control of individuals with cervical spinal cord injury and able-bodied individuals; and 2) investigate the effects of foot support and trunk fluctuations on postural control during sitting balance. METHODS: Ten able-bodied individuals and six individuals with cervical spinal cord injury were asked to sit quietly during two 60s trials. The forces exerted on the seat and the foot support surfaces were measured separately using two force plates. The global centre of pressure sway was obtained from the measurements on the two force plates, and the sway for each force plate was calculated individually. FINDINGS: Individuals with spinal cord injury had at least twice as large global and seat sways compared to able-bodied individuals, while foot support sway was not significantly different between the two groups. Comparison between global and seat sways showed that anterior-posterior velocity of global sway was larger compared to the seat sway in both groups. INTERPRETATION: Postural control of individuals with cervical spinal cord injury was worse than that of able-bodied individuals. The trunk swayed more in individuals with spinal cord injury, while the stabilization effect of the feet did not differ between the groups. Foot support affected anterior-posterior fluctuations in both groups equally. Thus, trunk control is the dominant mechanism contributing to sitting balance in both able-bodied and spinal cord injury individuals.
BACKGROUND: Individuals with cervical spinal cord injury usually sustain impairments to the trunk and upper and lower limbs, resulting in compromised sitting balance. The objectives of this study were to: 1) compare postural control of individuals with cervical spinal cord injury and able-bodied individuals; and 2) investigate the effects of foot support and trunk fluctuations on postural control during sitting balance. METHODS: Ten able-bodied individuals and six individuals with cervical spinal cord injury were asked to sit quietly during two 60s trials. The forces exerted on the seat and the foot support surfaces were measured separately using two force plates. The global centre of pressure sway was obtained from the measurements on the two force plates, and the sway for each force plate was calculated individually. FINDINGS: Individuals with spinal cord injury had at least twice as large global and seat sways compared to able-bodied individuals, while foot support sway was not significantly different between the two groups. Comparison between global and seat sways showed that anterior-posterior velocity of global sway was larger compared to the seat sway in both groups. INTERPRETATION: Postural control of individuals with cervical spinal cord injury was worse than that of able-bodied individuals. The trunk swayed more in individuals with spinal cord injury, while the stabilization effect of the feet did not differ between the groups. Foot support affected anterior-posterior fluctuations in both groups equally. Thus, trunk control is the dominant mechanism contributing to sitting balance in both able-bodied and spinal cord injury individuals.
Authors: Mrinal Rath; Albert H Vette; Shyamsundar Ramasubramaniam; Kun Li; Joel Burdick; Victor R Edgerton; Yury P Gerasimenko; Dimitry G Sayenko Journal: J Neurotrauma Date: 2018-07-05 Impact factor: 5.269
Authors: Kiley L Armstrong; Lisa M Lombardo; Kevin M Foglyano; Musa L Audu; Ronald J Triolo Journal: J Neuroeng Rehabil Date: 2018-03-12 Impact factor: 4.262
Authors: Georg Zimmermann; Lisa-Maria Bolter; Ronny Sluka; Yvonne Höller; Arne C Bathke; Aljoscha Thomschewski; Stefan Leis; Simona Lattanzi; Francesco Brigo; Eugen Trinka Journal: J Evid Based Med Date: 2019-06-23
Authors: Megan Gill; Margaux Linde; Kalli Fautsch; Rena Hale; Cesar Lopez; Daniel Veith; Jonathan Calvert; Lisa Beck; Kristin Garlanger; Reggie Edgerton; Dimitry Sayenko; Igor Lavrov; Andrew Thoreson; Peter Grahn; Kristin Zhao Journal: Front Syst Neurosci Date: 2020-11-19
Authors: Matija Milosevic; Kei Masani; Noel Wu; Kristiina M V McConville; Milos R Popovic Journal: J Neuroeng Rehabil Date: 2015-11-10 Impact factor: 4.262