Balance recovery from medio-lateral perturbations of the upper body during standing

• Published in: Journal of biomechanics 1999-11, Vol.32 (11), p.1149-1158
• Main Authors: Rietdyk, S, Patla, A.E, Winter, D.A, Ishac, M.G, Little, C.E
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Balance; Functional assessment; Inverted pendulum model; Joints (anatomy); Kinematics; Kinetics; Mathematical models; Muscle; Neurology; Posture; Standing; Stiffness; Strategy
• ISSN: 0021-9290; 1873-2380
• DOI: 10.1016/S0021-9290(99)00116-5

Postural control strategies have in the past been predominantly characterized by kinematics, surface forces and EMG responses (e.g. Horak and Nashner 1986 Journal of Neurophysiology 55(6), 1369–1381). The goal of this study was to provide unique and novel insights into the underlying motor mechanisms used in postural control by determining the joint moments during balance recovery from medio-lateral (M/L) perturbations. Ten adult males received medio-lateral (M/L) pushes to the trunk or pelvis. The inverted pendulum model of balance control ( Winter et al. 1998 Journal of Neurophysiology 80, 1211–1221) was validated even though the body did not behave as a single pendulum, indicating that the centre of pressure (COP) is the variable used to control the centre of mass (COM). The perturbation magnitude was random, and the central nervous system (CNS) responded with an estimate of the largest anticipated perturbation. The observed joint moments served to move the COP in the appropriate direction and to control the lateral collapse of the trunk. The individual joints involved in controlling the COP contributed differing amounts to the total recovery response: the hip and spinal moments provided the majority of the recovery (∼85%), while the ankles contributed a small, but significant amount (15%). The differing contributions are based on the anatomical constraints and the functional requirements of the balance task. The onset of the joint moment was synchronous with the joint angle change, and occurred too early (56–116 ms) to be result of active muscle contraction. Therefore, the first line of defense was provided by muscle stiffness, not reflex-activated muscle activity.