Literature DB >> 33859266

Development of a theoretical model for upright postural control in lower limb prosthesis users.

David F Rusaw1, Rasmus Alinder2, Sigurd Edholm2, Karin L L Hallstedt2, Jessika Runesson2, Cleveland T Barnett3.   

Abstract

Methods used to assess quiet standing in unilateral prosthesis users often assume validity of an inverted pendulum model despite this being shown as invalid in some instances. The aim of the current study was to evaluate the validity of a proposed unilaterally-constrained pin-controller model in explaining postural control in unilateral prosthesis users. Prosthesis users were contrasted against the theoretical model as were able-bodied controls that stood on a platform which unilaterally constrained movement of the CoP. All participants completed bouts of quiet standing with eyes open, eyes closed and with feedback on inter-limb weight bearing asymmetry. Correlation coefficients were used to infer inverted pendulum behavior in both the anteroposterior and mediolateral directions and were derived from both kinematic (body attached markers) and kinetic (centre of pressure) experimental data. Larger, negative correlation coefficients reflected better model adherence, whilst low or no correlation reflected poorer model adherence. Inverted pendulum behavior derived from kinematic data, indicated coefficients of high magnitude in both mediolateral (all cases range 0.71-0.78) and anteroposterior (0.88-0.91) directions, irrespective of groups. Inverted pendulum behavior derived from kinetic data in the anteroposterior direction indicated validity of the model with large negative coefficients associated with the unconstrained/intact limbs (prosthesis users: - 0.45 to - 0.65, control group: - 0.43 to - 0.72), small coefficients in constrained/prosthetic limbs (prosthesis users: - 0.02 to 0.07, control group: 0.13-0.26) and large negative coefficients in combined conditions (prosthesis users: - 0.36 to - 0.56, control group: - 0.71 to - 0.82). For the mediolateral direction, coefficients were negligible for individual limbs (0.03-0.17) and moderate to large negative correlations, irrespective of group (- 0.31 to - 0.73). Data suggested both prosthesis users' and able-bodied individuals' postural control conforms well to that predicted by a unilaterally-constrained pin-controller model, which has implications for the fundamental control of posture in transtibial prosthesis users.

Entities:  

Year:  2021        PMID: 33859266     DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-87657-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Sci Rep        ISSN: 2045-2322            Impact factor:   4.379


  21 in total

1.  Kinematic and kinetic validity of the inverted pendulum model in quiet standing.

Authors:  William H Gage; David A Winter; James S Frank; Allan L Adkin
Journal:  Gait Posture       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 2.840

2.  The validity of forceplate data as a measure of rapid and targeted volitional movements of the centre of mass in transtibial prosthesis users.

Authors:  David F Rusaw
Journal:  Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol       Date:  2016-09-22

3.  Do Predictive Relationships Exist Between Postural Control and Falls Efficacy in Unilateral Transtibial Prosthesis Users?

Authors:  Cleveland T Barnett; Natalie Vanicek; David F Rusaw
Journal:  Arch Phys Med Rehabil       Date:  2018-06-18       Impact factor: 3.966

4.  Kinematic error magnitude in the single-mass inverted pendulum model of human standing posture.

Authors:  Kai Lon Fok; Jae Lee; Albert H Vette; Kei Masani
Journal:  Gait Posture       Date:  2018-04-18       Impact factor: 2.840

5.  Assessment of Multi-Joint Coordination and Adaptation in Standing Balance: A Novel Device and System Identification Technique.

Authors:  Denise Engelhart; Alfred C Schouten; Ronald G K M Aarts; Herman van der Kooij
Journal:  IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng       Date:  2014-11-20       Impact factor: 3.802

6.  Postural responses during volitional and perturbed dynamic balance tasks in new lower limb amputees: a longitudinal study.

Authors:  C T Barnett; N Vanicek; R C J Polman
Journal:  Gait Posture       Date:  2012-08-24       Impact factor: 2.840

7.  The relationship between fear of falling and human postural control.

Authors:  Justin R Davis; Adam D Campbell; Allan L Adkin; Mark G Carpenter
Journal:  Gait Posture       Date:  2008-10-28       Impact factor: 2.840

Review 8.  Determining Risk of Falls in Community Dwelling Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Using Posttest Probability.

Authors:  Michelle M Lusardi; Stacy Fritz; Addie Middleton; Leslie Allison; Mariana Wingood; Emma Phillips; Michelle Criss; Sangita Verma; Jackie Osborne; Kevin K Chui
Journal:  J Geriatr Phys Ther       Date:  2017 Jan/Mar       Impact factor: 3.381

9.  A multi-joint model of quiet, upright stance accounts for the "uncontrolled manifold" structure of joint variance.

Authors:  Hendrik Reimann; Gregor Schöner
Journal:  Biol Cybern       Date:  2017-09-18       Impact factor: 2.086

10.  Quiet standing: The Single Inverted Pendulum model is not so bad after all.

Authors:  Pietro Morasso; Amel Cherif; Jacopo Zenzeri
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-03-21       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  1 in total

1.  Deterioration of postural control due to the increase of similarity between center of pressure and smooth-pursuit eye movements during standing on one leg.

Authors:  Hikaru Nakahara; Rukia Nawata; Ryota Matsuo; Tomohiro Ohgomori
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-10-13       Impact factor: 3.752

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.