» Articles » PMID: 15480604

Nonlinear Postural Control in Response to Visual Translation

Overview
Journal Exp Brain Res
Specialty Neurology
Date 2004 Oct 14
PMID 15480604
Citations 20
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Recent models of human postural control have focused on the nonlinear properties inherent to fusing sensory information from multiple modalities. In general, these models are underconstrained, requiring additional experimental data to clarify the properties of such nonlinearities. Here we report an experiment suggesting that new or multiple mechanisms may be needed to capture the integration of vision into the postural control scheme. Subjects were presented with visual displays whose motion consisted of two components: a constant-amplitude, 0.2 Hz oscillation, and constant-velocity translation from left to right at velocities between 0 cm/s and 4 cm/s. Postural sway variability increased systematically with translation velocity, but remained below that observed in the eyes-closed condition, indicating that the postural control system is able to use visual information to stabilize sway even at translation velocities as high as 4 cm/s. Gain initially increased as translation velocity increased from 0 cm/s to 1 cm/s and then decreased. The changes in gain and variability provided a clear indication of nonlinearity in the postural response across conditions, which were interpreted in terms of sensory reweighting. The fact that gain did not decrease at low translation velocities suggests that the postural control system is able to decompose relative visual motion into environmental motion and self-motion. The eventual decrease in gain suggests that nonlinearities in sensory noise levels (state-dependent noise) may also contribute to the sensory reweighting involved in postural control. These results provide important constraints and suggest that multiple mechanisms may be required to model the nonlinearities involved in sensory fusion for upright stance control.

Citing Articles

Perceptual-motor styles.

Vidal P, Lacquaniti F Exp Brain Res. 2021; 239(5):1359-1380.

PMID: 33675378 PMC: 8144157. DOI: 10.1007/s00221-021-06049-0.


Reductions in body sway responses to a rhythmic support surface tilt perturbation can be caused by other mechanisms than prediction.

Asslander L, Gruber M, Giboin L Exp Brain Res. 2020; 238(2):465-476.

PMID: 31955233 PMC: 7007899. DOI: 10.1007/s00221-020-05723-z.


Segmental trunk and head dynamics during frontal plane tilt stimuli in healthy sitting adults.

Wu Y, Duncan K, Saavedra S, Goodworth A J Biomech. 2016; 49(13):2831-2837.

PMID: 27395757 PMC: 5056133. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2016.06.023.


Interaction effects of visual stimulus speed and contrast on postural sway.

Holten V, van der Smagt M, Verstraten F, Donker S Exp Brain Res. 2015; 234(1):113-24.

PMID: 26378007 PMC: 4713711. DOI: 10.1007/s00221-015-4438-y.


Time-interval for integration of stabilizing haptic and visual information in subjects balancing under static and dynamic conditions.

Honeine J, Schieppati M Front Syst Neurosci. 2014; 8:190.

PMID: 25339872 PMC: 4186340. DOI: 10.3389/fnsys.2014.00190.


References
1.
Teasdale N, Stelmach G, Breunig A . Postural sway characteristics of the elderly under normal and altered visual and support surface conditions. J Gerontol. 1991; 46(6):B238-44. DOI: 10.1093/geronj/46.6.b238. View

2.
Peterka R . Sensorimotor integration in human postural control. J Neurophysiol. 2002; 88(3):1097-118. DOI: 10.1152/jn.2002.88.3.1097. View

3.
Black F, Nashner L . Vestibulo-spinal control differs in patients with reduced versus distorted vestibular function. Acta Otolaryngol Suppl. 1984; 406:110-4. DOI: 10.3109/00016488309123015. View

4.
Peterka R, Benolken M . Role of somatosensory and vestibular cues in attenuating visually induced human postural sway. Exp Brain Res. 1995; 105(1):101-10. DOI: 10.1007/BF00242186. View

5.
Dijkstra T, Schoner G, Gielen C . Temporal stability of the action-perception cycle for postural control in a moving visual environment. Exp Brain Res. 1994; 97(3):477-86. DOI: 10.1007/BF00241542. View