Literature DB >> 33326357

Interactions between initial posture and task-level goal explain experimental variability in postural responses to perturbations of standing balance.

Tom Van Wouwe1, Lena H Ting2,3, Friedl De Groote1.   

Abstract

Postural responses to similar perturbations of standing balance vary widely within and across subjects. Here, we identified two sources of variability and their interactions by combining experimental observations with computational modeling: differences in posture at perturbation onset across trials and differences in task-level goals across subjects. We first collected postural responses to unpredictable backward support-surface translations during standing in 10 young adults. We found that maximal trunk lean in postural responses to backward translations were highly variable both within subjects (mean of ranges = 28.3°) and across subjects (range of means = 39.9°). Initial center of mass (COM) position was correlated with maximal trunk lean during the response, but this relation was subject specific (R2 = 0.29-0.82). We then used predictive simulations to assess causal relations and interactions with task-level goal. Our simulations showed that initial posture explains the experimentally observed intrasubject variability with a more anterior initial COM position increasing the use of the hip strategy. Differences in task-level goal explain observed intersubject variability with prioritizing effort minimization leading to ankle strategies and prioritizing stability leading to hip strategies. Interactions between initial posture and task-level goal explain observed differences in intrasubject variability across subjects. Our findings suggest that variability in initial posture due to increased sway as observed in older adults might increase the occurrence of less stable postural responses to perturbations. Insight in factors causing movement variability will advance our ability to study the origin of differences between groups and conditions.NEW & NOTEWORTHY Responses to perturbations of standing balance vary both within and between individuals. By combining experimental observations with computational modeling, we identified causes of observed kinematic variability in healthy young adults. First, we found that trial-by-trial differences in posture at perturbation onset explain most of the kinematic variability observed within subjects. Second, we found that differences in prioritizing effort versus stability explained differences in the postural response as well as differences in trial-by-trial variability across subjects.

Entities:  

Keywords:  initial posture; postural control; predictive simulation; task-level goal

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 33326357      PMCID: PMC7948145          DOI: 10.1152/jn.00476.2020

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Neurophysiol        ISSN: 0022-3077            Impact factor:   2.714


  68 in total

1.  Thresholds for step initiation induced by support-surface translation: a dynamic center-of-mass model provides much better prediction than a static model.

Authors:  Y C Pai; B E Maki; K Iqbal; W E McIlroy; S D Perry
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2000-03       Impact factor: 2.712

2.  Influence of the behavioral goal and environmental obstacles on rapid feedback responses.

Authors:  Joseph Y Nashed; Frédéric Crevecoeur; Stephen H Scott
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2012-05-23       Impact factor: 2.714

3.  An optimal state estimation model of sensory integration in human postural balance.

Authors:  Arthur D Kuo
Journal:  J Neural Eng       Date:  2005-08-31       Impact factor: 5.379

4.  The 'extrapolated center of mass' concept suggests a simple control of balance in walking.

Authors:  At L Hof
Journal:  Hum Mov Sci       Date:  2007-11-01       Impact factor: 2.161

5.  Rapid motor responses are appropriately tuned to the metrics of a visuospatial task.

Authors:  J Andrew Pruszynski; Isaac Kurtzer; Stephen H Scott
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2008-05-07       Impact factor: 2.714

6.  Static versus dynamic predictions of protective stepping following waist-pull perturbations in young and older adults.

Authors:  Y C Pai; M W Rogers; J Patton; T D Cain; T A Hanke
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  1998-12       Impact factor: 2.712

7.  Increased sensory noise and not muscle weakness explains changes in non-stepping postural responses following stance perturbations in healthy elderly.

Authors:  Maarten Afschrift; Friedl De Groote; Sabine Verschueren; Ilse Jonkers
Journal:  Gait Posture       Date:  2017-10-04       Impact factor: 2.840

8.  Contribution of muscle short-range stiffness to initial changes in joint kinetics and kinematics during perturbations to standing balance: A simulation study.

Authors:  Friedl De Groote; Jessica L Allen; Lena H Ting
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2017-02-21       Impact factor: 2.712

9.  Postural responses to unexpected perturbations of balance during reaching.

Authors:  Hari Trivedi; Julia A Leonard; Lena H Ting; Paul J Stapley
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2009-12-25       Impact factor: 1.972

10.  Mechanisms of motor adaptation in reactive balance control.

Authors:  Torrence D J Welch; Lena H Ting
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-05-08       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.