Walker Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA.
Walker Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA.
Gait Posture. 2024 Feb;108:313-319. doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2023.12.018. Epub 2024 Jan 3.
Balance perturbation studies during walking have improved our understanding of balance control in various destabilizing conditions. However, it is unknown to what extent balance recovery strategies can be generalized across different types of mediolateral balance perturbations.
Do similar mediolateral perturbations (foot placement versus surface translation) have similar effects on balance control and corresponding balance response strategies?
Kinetic and kinematic data were previously collected during two separate studies, each with 15 young, healthy participants walking on an instrumented treadmill. In both studies, medial and lateral balance perturbations were applied at 80% of the gait cycle either by a treadmill surface translation or a pneumatic force applied to the swing foot. Differences in balance control (frontal plane whole body angular momentum) and balance response strategies (hip abduction moment, ankle inversion moment, center of pressure excursion and frontal plane trunk moment) between perturbed and unperturbed gait cycles were evaluated using statistical parametric mapping.
Balance disruptions after foot placement perturbations were larger and sustained longer compared to surface translations. Changes in joint moment responses were also larger for the foot placement perturbations compared to the surface translation perturbations. Lateral hip, ankle, and trunk strategies were used to maintain balance after medial foot placement perturbations, while a trunk strategy was primarily used after surface translations.
Surface and foot placement perturbations influence balance control and corresponding response strategies differently. These results can help inform the development of perturbation-based balance training interventions aimed at reducing fall risk in clinical populations.
行走时的平衡扰动研究提高了我们对各种失稳条件下平衡控制的理解。然而，尚不清楚平衡恢复策略在多大程度上可以推广到不同类型的横向平衡扰动。
类似的横向平衡扰动（足部放置与表面平移）是否对平衡控制和相应的平衡反应策略有相似的影响？
在两项独立的研究中分别收集了动力学和运动学数据，每项研究均有 15 名年轻健康的参与者在仪器化跑步机上行走。在两项研究中，以 80%的步态周期通过跑步机表面平移或气动力施加到摆动脚来施加横向和侧向平衡扰动。使用统计参数映射评估平衡控制（额状面整体身体角动量）和平衡反应策略（髋关节外展力矩、踝关节内翻力矩、中心压力偏移和额状面躯干力矩）在受扰和未受扰步态周期之间的差异。
与表面平移相比，足部放置扰动后的平衡干扰更大且持续时间更长。与表面平移相比，足部放置扰动后关节力矩响应的变化也更大。在横向足放置扰动后，使用髋关节、踝关节和躯干策略来维持平衡，而在表面平移后主要使用躯干策略。
表面和足部放置扰动以不同的方式影响平衡控制和相应的反应策略。这些结果有助于为基于扰动的平衡训练干预措施的发展提供信息，以降低临床人群的跌倒风险。
