HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 90/2/666    most recent 00974.2002v1 Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Web of Science (14) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Mille, M.-L. Articles by Fitzpatrick, R. C. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Mille, M.-L. Articles by Fitzpatrick, R. C.

Thresholds for Inducing Protective Stepping Responses to External Perturbations of Human Standing

¹ Department of Physical Therapy and Human Movement Sciences, The Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL; ² Prince of Wales Medical Research Institute and University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2031, Australia

Submitted 29 October 2002; accepted in final form 2 April 2003

Standing subjects were unexpectedly pulled forward to identify a threshold boundary that evokes stepping in terms of the size of the pull relative to the base of support (BoS). Performances in a range of sensorimotor tests were correlated with the threshold boundary parameters. Younger and older subjects were studied to identify age-related changes in stepping and the threshold boundaries. The threshold boundary had a forward limit (T_L) that, when crossed, always made subjects step no matter how slowly they were pulled. As velocity increased, the threshold position that produced a step shifted nearer to the ankles. Eventually a pull velocity was reached above which velocity had no further effect and a position threshold (T_H) was identified behind which subjects never stepped. Thus the position threshold boundary for stepping is a posterior-going sigmoidal function of perturbation velocity. Older subjects stepped more than the young (69% vs. 40% of trials). For the older subjects, T_L (91% vs. 107% BoS) and T_H (59% vs. 72% BoS) were closer to the ankles, and the transition between T_L and T_H occurred at lower velocities (96% vs. 121% BoS.s^–1). Across the entire study population many sensorimotor factors were associated with T_L and T_H. However, these associations were not present when age was removed as a factor. Thus, although the older subjects use protective stepping more often, this cannot be attributed directly to the sensorimotor factors tested here. It can be explained by stepping as a triggered response to the perturbation event rather than later sensory input about body movement.