| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
The Journal of Neurophysiology Vol. 79 No. 4 April 1998,
pp. 1661-1674
Copyright ©1998 The American Physiological Society
1 Department of Kinesiology, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742; 2 Centre de Recherche en Neurosciences Cognitives, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 13402 Marseille 20, France; and 3 Department of Psychology, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210
Jeka, John, Kelvin Oie, Gregor Schöner, Tjeerd Dijkstra, and Elaine Henson. Position and velocity coupling of postural sway to somatosensory drive. J. Neurophysiol. 79: 1661-1674, 1998. Light touch contact of a fingertip to a stationary surface provides orientation information that enhances control of upright stance. Slight changes in contact force at the fingertip lead to sensory cues about the direction of body sway, allowing attenuation of sway. In the present study, the coupling of postural sway to a moving contact surface was investigated in detail. Head, center of mass, and center of pressure displacement were measured as the contact surface moved rhythmically at 0.1, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, and 0.8 Hz. Stimulus amplitude decreased with frequency to maintain peak velocity constant across frequency. Head and body sway were highly coherent with contact surface motion at all frequencies except 0.8 Hz, where a drop-off in coherence was observed. Mean frequency of head and body sway matched the driving frequency 
0.4 Hz. At higher frequencies, non-1:1 coupling was evident. The phase of body sway relative to the touch plate averaged 20-30° at 0.1-Hz drive and decreased approximately linearly to 
130° at 0.8-Hz drive. System gain was ~1 across frequency. The large phase lags observed cannot be accounted for with velocity coupling alone but indicate that body sway also was coupled to the position of the touch plate. Fitting of a linear second-order model to the data suggests that postural control parameters are not fixed but adapt to the moving frame of reference. Moreover, coupling to both position and velocity suggest that a spatial reference frame is defined by the somatosensory system.
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  E. Rabin, P. DiZio, J. Ventura, and J. R. Lackner Influences of Arm Proprioception and Degrees of Freedom on Postural Control With Light Touch Feedback J Neurophysiol, February 1, 2008; 99(2): 595 - 604. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
W.-L. Hsu, J. P. Scholz, G. Schoner, J. J. Jeka, and T. Kiemel Control and Estimation of Posture During Quiet Stance Depends on Multijoint Coordination J Neurophysiol, April 1, 2007; 97(4): 3024 - 3035. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Cenciarini and R. J. Peterka Stimulus-Dependent Changes in the Vestibular Contribution to Human Postural Control J Neurophysiol, May 1, 2006; 95(5): 2733 - 2750. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. Masani, M. R. Popovic, K. Nakazawa, M. Kouzaki, and D. Nozaki Importance of Body Sway Velocity Information in Controlling Ankle Extensor Activities During Quiet Stance J Neurophysiol, December 1, 2003; 90(6): 3774 - 3782. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. J. Peterka Sensorimotor Integration in Human Postural Control J Neurophysiol, September 1, 2002; 88(3): 1097 - 1118. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. R. Lackner, E. Rabin, and P. DiZio Fingertip Contact Suppresses the Destabilizing Influence of Leg Muscle Vibration J Neurophysiol, November 1, 2000; 84(5): 2217 - 2224. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 P. Gatev, S. Thomas, T. Kepple, and M. Hallett Feedforward ankle strategy of balance during quiet stance in adults J. Physiol., February 1, 1999; 514(3): 915 - 928. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| Visit Other APS Journals Online |
