Institut PPRIME (UPR 3346), Université de Poitiers ENSMA, CNRS, Chasseneuil du Poitou, France; Centre de Recherches sur la Cognition et l'Apprentissage (UMR 7295), Université de Poitiers, Université de Tours, CNRS, Poitiers, France.
Institut PPRIME (UPR 3346), Université de Poitiers ENSMA, CNRS, Chasseneuil du Poitou, France; Centre de Recherches sur la Cognition et l'Apprentissage (UMR 7295), Université de Poitiers, Université de Tours, CNRS, Poitiers, France.
Gait Posture. 2023 Mar;101:134-137. doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2023.02.011. Epub 2023 Feb 17.
The mechanical consequences of the motor actions used to maintain upright standing balance can be discriminated in two mechanisms: i) moving the center of pressure (CoP) within the base of support (M1); and ii) modifying the whole-body angular momentum (M2). Since the contribution of M2 to the whole-body CoM acceleration increases with postural constraints, a postural analysis focusing only on the CoP trajectory (i.e. M1) could ignore the majority of the control actions in challenging postural tasks. The objective of this study was to determine the contributions of the two postural balance mechanisms across postures with different areas of the base of support.
Forty-one healthy young adults (19 females, 22.9 ± 2.9 years old) stood quietly on a forceplate, maintaining four different postures: bipedal, tandem, unipedal and unipedal on a 4-cm wooden bar; each with eyes open and for 60 s. Relative contributions of the two balance postural mechanisms were computed for each posture, in both directions of the horizontal plane.
The posture impacted the mechanisms contributions, where the contribution of M1 decreased between each posture in the mediolateral direction as the area of the base of support was reduced. The contribution of M2 in the mediolateral direction was not negligible (about 1/3) in tandem and unipedal postures and became dominant (nearly 90% on average) in the most challenging unipedal posture.
This suggests the contribution of M2 should not be neglected for the analysis of postural balance, and particularly in challenging standing postures.
用于维持直立站立平衡的运动动作的力学后果可以通过两种机制来区分:i)在支撑基础内移动中心压力(CoP)(M1);ii)改变整个身体的角动量(M2)。由于 M2 对整个身体 CoM 加速度的贡献随着姿势约束的增加而增加,因此仅对 CoP 轨迹(即 M1)进行姿势分析可能会忽略在具有挑战性的姿势任务中的大部分控制动作。本研究的目的是确定在具有不同支撑基础区域的姿势中,两种姿势平衡机制的贡献。
41 名健康的年轻成年人(19 名女性,22.9±2.9 岁)在力板上安静地站立,保持四种不同的姿势:双脚、并脚、单脚和单脚站立在 4 厘米宽的木棒上;睁眼,每个姿势持续 60 秒。计算了每个姿势在水平平面的两个方向上两种平衡姿势机制的相对贡献。
姿势影响了机制的贡献,在横向上,随着支撑基础面积的减小,每个姿势之间的 M1 贡献减小。M2 在横向上的贡献在并脚和单脚姿势中不容忽视(约 1/3),在最具挑战性的单脚姿势中变得占主导地位(平均近 90%)。
这表明在分析姿势平衡时,不应忽略 M2 的贡献,特别是在具有挑战性的站立姿势中。