Literature DB >> 27004649

Strategies for equilibrium maintenance during single leg standing on a wobble board.

Priscila de Brito Silva1, Anderson Souza Oliveira2, Natalie Mrachacz-Kersting3, Uffe Laessoe4, Uwe Gustav Kersting5.   

Abstract

The aim of this study was to identify and compare movement strategies used to maintain balance while single leg standing on either a firm surface (FS) or on a wobble board (WB). In 17 healthy men, retroreflective markers were positioned on the xiphoid process and nondominant lateral malleolus to calculate trunk and contralateral-leg excursion (EXC) and velocity (VEL), and center of pressure (CoP) EXC and VEL during FS on a force platform. From the WB test, standing time (WBTIME) was determined and the board's angular EXC and VEL were calculated from four markers on the WB as surrogate measures for CoP dynamics. Electromyographic average rectified values (ARV) from eight leg and thigh muscles of the supporting limb were calculated for both tasks. WB ARV amplitudes were normalized with respect to the value of FS ARV and presented significantly higher peroneus longus and biceps femoris activity (p<0.05). WB standing time was correlated to trunk sagittal plane velocity (r=-0.73 at p=0.016) and excursion (r=-0.67 at p=0.03). CoP and WB angular movement measures were weakly and not significantly correlated between tasks. This lack of correlation indicates that WB balance maintenance requires movement beyond the ankle strategy as described for the FS task. WB standing likely demands different biomechanical and neuromuscular control strategies, which has immediate implications for the significance of WB tests in contrast to FS balance tests. Differences in control strategies will also have implications for the understanding of mechanisms for rehabilitation training using such devices.
Copyright © 2015. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Ankle disc; Balance; Balance board; Injury prevention; Motor control

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 27004649     DOI: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2015.12.005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gait Posture        ISSN: 0966-6362            Impact factor:   2.840


  6 in total

Review 1.  Devices and tasks involved in the objective assessment of standing dynamic balancing - A systematic literature review.

Authors:  Bálint Petró; Alexandra Papachatzopoulou; Rita M Kiss
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-09-21       Impact factor: 3.240

2.  Changes in postural strategy of the lower limb under mechanical knee constraint on an unsteady stance surface.

Authors:  Yi-Ying Tsai; Gwo-Ching Chang; Ing-Shiou Hwang
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-11-30       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  Differences in lower limb muscle activation between global and selective instability devices in single-leg stance in healthy active subjects.

Authors:  Mariana Sánchez-Barbadora; Alba Cuerda-Del Pino; Javier González-Rosalén; Noemi Moreno-Segura; Adrian Escriche-Escuder; Rodrigo Martín-San Agustín
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2022-04-18       Impact factor: 3.061

4.  Comparison of effect of wobble board training with and without cognitive intervention on balance, ankle proprioception and jump landing kinetic parameters of men with chronic ankle instability: a randomized control trial.

Authors:  Abed Taghavi Asl; Seyed Sadredin Shojaedin; Malihe Hadadnezhad
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2022-09-30       Impact factor: 2.562

5.  Custom-made hinged knee braces with extension support can improve dynamic balance.

Authors:  Akira Ochi; Hiroshi Ohko; Susumu Ota; Nami Shimoichi; Tsukasa Takemoto; Kaho Mitsuke
Journal:  J Exerc Sci Fit       Date:  2018-09-04       Impact factor: 3.103

6.  Evaluation of proprioception and postural control at a minimum 1 year follow-up after ankle capsuloligamentous lateralplasty with Brostrom technique: A cohort study.

Authors:  Massimiliano Mosca; Silvio Caravelli; Simone Massimi; Mario Fuiano; Giuseppe Catanese; Giuseppe Barone; Laura Bragonzoni; Maria Grazia Benedetti
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2020-04       Impact factor: 1.817

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.