JN Information on EB 2010
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


J Neurophysiol (April 29, 2009). doi:10.1152/jn.00118.2009
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
102/1/496    most recent
00118.2009v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Goodworth, A. D.
Right arrow Articles by Peterka, R. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Goodworth, A. D.
Right arrow Articles by Peterka, R. J.
Submitted on February 9, 2009
Revised on April 15, 2009
Accepted on April 23, 2009

Contribution of Sensorimotor Integration to Spinal Stabilization in Humans

Adam David Goodworth1 and Robert J. Peterka1*

1 Oregon Health & Science University

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: peterkar{at}ohsu.edu.

The control of upper body (UB) orientation relative to the pelvis in the frontal plane was characterized by analyzing responses to external perturbations consisting of continuous pelvis tilts (eyes open and eyes closed) and visual surround tilts (eyes open) at various amplitudes. Lateral sway of the lower body was prevented on all tests. UB sway was analyzed by calculating impulse-response functions (IRFs) and frequency response functions (FRFs) from 0.023 to 10.3 Hz for pelvis tilt tests and FRFs from 0.43 to 1.5 Hz for visual tests. For pelvis tilt tests, differences between FRFs were limited to frequencies below 3 Hz and were dependent on stimulus amplitude. IRFs were nearly identical across all pelvis tilt tests for the first 0.2 s, but showed amplitude-dependent changes in their time course at longer time lags. The availability of visual orientation cues (eyes open compared to eyes closed) had only a small effect on the UB sway during pelvis tilt tests. This small effect of vision was consistent with the small UB sway evoked on visual tilt tests. Experimental results were interpreted using a feedback model of UB orientation control that included time-delayed sensory integration, short-latency reflexive mechanisms, and intrinsic biomechanical properties of the UB. Variation in model parameters indicated that subjects shifted toward reliance on vestibular information and away from proprioceptive information as pelvis tilt amplitudes increased. For visual tilt stimuli, model parameters indicated that subjects shifted toward reliance on vestibular and proprioceptive information and away from visual information as the stimulus amplitude increased.







HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
Visit Other APS Journals Online
Copyright © 2009 by the The American Physiological Society.