JN Fuel your research with LabChart
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


J Neurophysiol 94: 3143-3158, 2005. First published July 20, 2005; doi:10.1152/jn.00538.2004
0022-3077/05 $8.00
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
94/5/3143    most recent
00538.2004v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI 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 HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (9)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Grüneberg, C.
Right arrow Articles by Allum, J.H.J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Grüneberg, C.
Right arrow Articles by Allum, J.H.J.

Spatio-Temporal Separation of Roll and Pitch Balance-Correcting Commands in Humans

C. Grüneberg1,2, J. Duysens2,3, F. Honegger1 and J.H.J. Allum1

1Department of Otorhinolaryngology, University Hospital, Basel, Switzerland; 2Department of Biophysics, University Medical Centre St Radboud; and 3Sint Maartens Kliniek-Research, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

Submitted 20 May 2004; accepted in final form 12 July 2005

This study was designed to provide evidence for the hypothesis that human balance corrections in response to pitch perturbations are controlled by muscle action mainly about the ankle and knee joints, whereas balance corrections for roll perturbations are controlled predominantly by motion about the hip and lumbro-sacral joints. A dual-axis rotating support surface delivered unexpected random perturbations to the stance of 19 healthy young adults through eight different directions in the pitch and the roll planes and three delays between pitch and roll directions. Roll delays with respect to pitch were no delay, a short 50-ms delay of roll with respect to pitch movements, (chosen to correspond to the onset time of leg muscle stretch reflexes), and a long 150-ms delay between roll and pitch movements (chosen to shift the time when trunk roll velocity peaks to the time when trunk peak pitch velocity normally occurs). Delays of stimulus roll with respect to pitch resulted in delayed roll responses of the legs, trunk, arms, and head consistent with stimulus delay without any changes in roll velocity amplitude. Delayed roll perturbations induced only small changes in the pitch motion of the legs and trunk; however, major changes were seen in the time when roll motion of the trunk was arrested. Amplitudes and directional sensitivity of short-latency (SL) stretch reflexes in ankle muscles were not altered with increasing roll delay. Small changes to balance correcting responses in ankle muscles were observed. SL stretch reflexes in hip and trunk muscles were delayed, and balance-correcting responses in trunk muscles became split into two distinct responses with delayed roll. The first of these responses was small and had a directional responsiveness aligned more along the pitch plane. The main, larger, response occurred with an onset and time-to-peak consistent with the delay in trunk roll displacement and its directional responsiveness was roll oriented. The sum of the amplitudes of these two types of balance-correcting responses remained constant with roll delay. These results support the hypothesis that corrections of the body's pitch and roll motion are programmed separately by neural command signals and provide insights into possible triggering mechanisms. The evidence that lower leg muscle balance-correcting activity is hardly changed by delayed trunk roll also indicates that lower leg muscle activity is not predominant in correcting roll motion of the body. Lower leg and trunk muscle activity appears to have a dual action in balance corrections. In trunk muscles the main action is to correct for roll perturbations and the lesser action may be an anticipatory stabilizing reaction for pitch perturbations. Likewise, the small changes in lower leg muscle activity may result from a generalized stabilizing reaction to roll perturbations, but the main action is to correct for pitch perturbations.


Address for reprint requests and other correspondence: J.H.J. Allum, Univ. ORL Clinic, Petersgraben 4, CH-4031 Basel, Switzerland (E-mail:jallum{at}uhbs.ch)




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
J. Neurophysiol.Home page
L. B. Oude Nijhuis, B. R. Bloem, M. G. Carpenter, and J. H. J. Allum
Incorporating Voluntary Knee Flexion Into Nonanticipatory Balance Corrections
J Neurophysiol, November 1, 2007; 98(5): 3047 - 3059.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J. Neurophysiol.Home page
G. Torres-Oviedo and L. H. Ting
Muscle Synergies Characterizing Human Postural Responses
J Neurophysiol, October 1, 2007; 98(4): 2144 - 2156.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Visit Other APS Journals Online
Copyright © 2005 by the The American Physiological Society.