| Literature DB >> 31616369 |
Arnaud Delafontaine1,2,3, Thomas Vialleron1,2, Matthieu Fischer1,2, Guillaume Laffaye1,2, Laurence Chèze4, Romain Artico1,2,3, François Genêt5, Paul Christian Fourcade1,2, Eric Yiou1,2.
Abstract
Whole-body vibration (WBV) is a training method that exposes the entire body to mechanical oscillations while standing erect or seated on a vibrating platform. This method is nowadays commonly used by clinicians to improve specific motor outcomes in various sub-populations such as elderly and young healthy adults, either sedentary or well-trained. The present study investigated the effects of acute WBV application on the balance control mechanisms during gait initiation (GI) in young healthy adults and elderly. It was hypothesized that the balance control mechanisms at play during gait initiation may compensate each other in case one or several components are perturbed following acute WBV application, so that postural stability and/or motor performance can be maintained or even improved. It is further hypothesized that this capacity of adaptation is altered with aging. Main results showed that the effects of acute WBV application on the GI postural organization depended on the age of participants. Specifically, a positive effect was observed on dynamic stability in the young adults, while no effect was observed in the elderly. An increased stance leg stiffness was also observed in the young adults only. The positive effect of WBV on dynamic stability was ascribed to an increase in the mediolateral amplitude of "anticipatory postural adjustments" following WBV application, which did overcompensate the potentially destabilizing effect of the increased stance leg stiffness. In elderly, no such anticipatory (nor corrective) postural adaptation was required since acute WBV application did not elicit any change in the stance leg stiffness. These results suggest that WBV application may be effective in improving dynamic stability but at the condition that participants are able to develop adaptive changes in balance control mechanisms, as did the young adults. Globally, these findings are thus in agreement with the hypothesis that balance control mechanisms are interdependent within the postural system, i.e., they may compensate each other in case one component (here the leg stiffness) is perturbed.Entities:
Keywords: anticipatory postural adjustment (APA); elderly; gait initiation; whole-body vibration (WBV); young adults
Year: 2019 PMID: 31616369 PMCID: PMC6768974 DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2019.01023
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Neurol ISSN: 1664-2295 Impact factor: 4.003
Anthropometric data of subjects in both WBV and sham groups (young adults and elderly).
| Young adults ( | Women ( | 9 | 10 | NS |
| Men ( | 11 | 11 | NS | |
| Age (years) | 25.30 ± 3.50 | 26.6 ± 4.2 | NS | |
| Height (m) | 1.71 ± 0.05 | 1.74 ± 0.04 | NS | |
| Body mass (kg) | 71.40 ± 5.30 | 72.10 ± 4.90 | NS | |
| Elderly ( | Women ( | 11 | 11 | NS |
| Men ( | 9 | 9 | NS | |
| Age (years) | 83.50 ± 2.80 | 84.20 ± 3.70 | NS | |
| Height (m) | 1.69 ± 0.06 | 1.71 ± 0.07 | NS | |
| Body mass (kg) | 70.40 ± 4.30 | 71.70 ± 3.90 | NS |
Reported values are means ± standard deviation.
NS, non-significant difference.
Figure 2Linear regression between normalized medio-lateral peak anticipatory center-of-pressure (COP) shift and the normalized medio-lateral stance leg stiffness in the WBV condition. Each point represents the average value of subjects in the WBV condition (r = 0.61, p < 0.01).
Figure 1Typical biomechanical traces and representation of the main experimental variables obtained in one young adult of the WBV group initiating gait in the pre and post treatment condition. Anteroposterior (AP) direction (x axis): x′M: center of mass (COM) velocity; x′MTO and x′MFC: COM velocity at toe off and foot contact. xM: COM displacement; xMTO and xMFC: COM displacement at toe off and foot contact; xP: center of pressure (COP) displacement; xPmax: peak of COP displacement during the anticipatory postural adjustments; F: forward; B: backward. Mediolateral (ML) direction (x axis): y′M: COM velocity; y′MTO and y′MFC: COM velocity at toe off and foot contact; yM: COM displacement; yMTO and yMFC: COM displacement at toe off and foot contact; yP: COP displacement; yPmax: peak of COP displacement during the APA; ST: stance limb; SW: swing limb. Vertical dashed lines t0: onset variation of biomechanical traces; HO: swing heel off; TO: swing toe off; FC: swing foot contact. Horizontal arrows: APA: anticipatory postural adjustments phase; FL: foot lift phase; swing: execution phase.
Comparison of APA and foot lift parameters between the pre- and post-treatment condition in the WBV and sham group (young adults and elderly).
| Young adults | AP COP shift (cm) | 4.94 ± 1.51 | 5.29 ± 1.23 | 5.44 ± 1.37 | 5.52 ± 1.41 | NS |
| ML COP shift(cm) | 4.61 ± 2.17 | 5.35 ± 2.09 | 4.99 ± 1.27 | 5.12 ± 1.43 | <0.001 | |
| AP APA duration (s) | 0.05 ± 0.11 | 0.47 ± 0.01 | 0.51 ± 0.10 | 0.50 ± 0.09 | NS | |
| ML APA duration (s) | 0.45 ± 0.08 | 0.47 ± 0.09 | 0.49 ± 0.01 | 0.45 ± 0.07 | NS | |
| Foot lift duration (s) | 0.12 ± 0.02 | 0.12 ± 0.03 | 0.14 ± 0.04 | 0.13 ± 0.04 | NS | |
| AP COM velocity at HO (m/s) | 0.21 ± 0.04 | 0.22 ± 0.05 | 0.23 ± 0.04 | 0.22 ± 0.04 | NS | |
| ML COM velocity at HO (m/s) | 0.14 ± 0.04 | 0.15 ± 0.04 | 0.15 ± 0.02 | 0.15 ± 0.03 | 0.04 | |
| Elderly | AP COP shift (cm) | 4.53 ± 1.23 | 5.03 ± 1.32 | 4.69 ± 0.64 | 4.95 ± 1.27 | NS |
| ML COP shift(cm) | 4.21 ± 1.55 | 4.48 ± 1.63 | 4.85 ± 1.53 | 5.05 ± 1.88 | NS | |
| AP APA duration (s) | 0.40 ± 0.09 | 0.36 ± 0.06 | 0.38 ± 0.06 | 0.36 ± 0.05 | NS | |
| ML APA duration (s) | 0.39 ± 0.09 | 0.37 ± 0.05 | 0.36 ± 0.05 | 0.37 ± 0.05 | NS | |
| Foot lift duration (s) | 0.14 ± 0.02 | 0.14 ± 0.02 | 0.14 ± 0.02 | 0.14 ± 0.04 | NS | |
| AP COM velocity at HO (m/s) | 0.15 ± 0.05 | 0.16 ± 0.05 | 0.14 ± 0.03 | 0.15 ± 0.05 | NS | |
| ML COM velocity at HO (m/s) | 0.11 ± 0.04 | 0.11 ± 0.03 | 0.12 ± 0.04 | 0.12 ± 0.04 | NS | |
Reported values are means ± standard deviation. APA, anticipatory postural adjustments; COM, center of mass; COP, center of pressure; AP, anteroposterior; ML, mediolateral; HO, heel off; NS, non-significant interaction.
Significant difference between the pre and post-treatment condition as revealed with the Tukey post-hoc test, with P < 0.05, P < 0.01, and P <0.001, respectively.
Comparison of motor performance, stability and stiffness parameters between the pre- and post-treatment condition in the WBV and sham group (young adults and elderly).
| Young adults | Swing phase duration (s) | 0.12 ± 0.02 | 0.13 ± 0.03 | 0.14 ± 0.04 | 0.14 ± 0.04 | NS |
| Step length (cm) | 67.94 ± 6.43 | 67.89 ± 6.74 | 70.32 ± 8.61 | 70.68 ± 7.45 | NS | |
| AP COM velocity at FC (m/s) | 0.96 ± 0.01 | 0.98 ± 0.09 | 1.01 ± 0.12 | 1.02 ± 0.11 | NS | |
| Step width (cm) | 17.11 ± 4.03 | 17.07 ± 4.09 | 18.12 ± 4.57 | 17.52 ± 4.19 | NS | |
| ML COM position at FC (cm) | 3.56 ± 2.80 | 4.52 ± 2.11 | 3.85 ± 2.27 | 3.93 ± 2.31 | 0.03 | |
| ML COM velocity at FC (m/s) | −0.14 ± 0.05 | −0.12 ± 0.04 | −0.15 ± 0.03 | −0.14 ± 0.03 | 0.04 | |
| Margin of stability (cm) | 4.74 ± 3.43 | 5.76 ± 2.56 | 5.79 ± 2.65 | 5.77 ± 2.48 | 0.02 | |
| Stiffness | 835.10 ± 355.40 | 975.62 ± 290.11 | 973.32 ± 293.83 | 972.98 ± 328.87 | 0.04 | |
| Elderly | Swing phase duration (s) | 0.14 ± 0.02 | 0.14 ± 0.04 | 0.14 ± 0.02 | 0.14 ± 0.04 | NS |
| Step length (cm) | 52.74 ± 10.19 | 53.89 ± 8.35 | 52.74 ± 10.32 | 54.39 ± 9.20 | NS | |
| AP COM velocity at FC (m/s) | 0.74 ± 0.17 | 0.78 ± 0.11 | 0.76 ± 0.14 | 0.79 ± 0.11 | NS | |
| Step width (cm) | 16.84 ± 2.44 | 17.17 ± 2.77 | 17.49 ± 4.42 | 18.10 ± 4.96 | NS | |
| ML COM position at FC (cm) | 6.32 ± 5.19 | 5.98 ± 4.84 | 6.38 ± 6.34 | 6.11 ± 5.66 | NS | |
| ML COM velocity at HC (m/s) | −0.13 ± 0.03 | −0.14 ± 0.03 | −0.14 ± 0.04 | −0.15 ± 0.05 | NS | |
| Margin of stability (cm) | 5.98 ± 1.72 | 5.18 ± 2.21 | 6.38 ± 2.24 | 5.59 ± 2.58 | NS | |
| Stiffness | 1061.90 ± 145.99 | 1006.45 ± 221.21 | 1208.88 ± 389.14 | 1208.33 ± 508.51 | NS | |
Reported values are means ± standard deviation. COM, center of mass; COP, center of pressure; AP, anteroposterior; ML, mediolateral; FC, foot contact; NS, non-significant interaction.
Significant difference between the pre and post-treatment condition as revealed with the Tukey post-hoc test, with P < 0.05, P < 0.01, and P < 0.001, respectively.