It is widely assumed that healthy aging includes a decline in the stability of standing body sway. Certainly, the spatial magnitude of postural sway increases with age. However, the interpretation of this effect as a decline in the ability to stabilize posture rests, in part, on assumptions about the nature and definition of stability in stance. In this article, I review data on the control of standing posture in healthy older adults. I focus on a growing list of studies that demonstrate the retention, among healthy older adults, of the ability functionally to modulate postural sway in support of “suprapostural” activities. I address laboratory research, but also field studies carried out in a setting that dramatically challenges the control of stance: life on ships at sea. I argue that it may be possible, and certainly will be useful, to address directly the functional control of stance in older adults.
Functional Control of Stance in Older Adults
Thomas A. Stoffregen
Open Foot Stance Reduces Lead Knee Joint Loading During Golf Swing
Hannah Stokes, Rafael Escamilla, Joseph Bellapianta, Hongsheng Wang, Tyson Beach, Dave Frost, and Naiquan Zheng
during the golf swing. Knee joint biomechanics are related to both performance and injury mechanisms. Understanding the connection between foot stance, club type, and lead knee joint biomechanics could help develop preventative measures, new training protocols, and further understand injury mechanisms. A
Postural Dynamics in Upright and Inverted Stances
Semyon M. Slobounov and Karl M. Newell
This study provides a comparative analysis of certain features of upright and inverted stance in collegiate-level competitive gymnastic and diving athletes. A particular focus was the compensatory movement strategies used to maintain inverted stance. The analyses revealed that the motion of the center of pressure was significantly greater in the hand stance as opposed to the upright stance condition. Instability increased over the duration of a 15-s hand stance trial, and it was paralleled by the introduction of a small set of compensatory movement strategies that included enhanced motion at the distal segments of the legs and at the elbow joint. The compensatory movement strategies appeared to be in support of minimizing variability of motion in the head and trunk. The relative contribution of the principal sources of this instability in the hand stance remains to be determined.
Effects of Ankle Angular Position and Standing Surface on Postural Control of Upright Stance
Fawaz A. Alwadani, Huaqing Liang, and Alexander S. Aruin
The central nervous system assimilates afferent sensory inputs from the visual, proprioceptive, and vestibular systems to maintain a stable bipedal stance ( Ivanenko & Gurfinkel, 2018 ; Massion, 1994 ). When standing still, the vertical projection of the center of gravity rests anteriorly to the
Intralimb Joint Coordination Patterns of the Lower Extremity in Maximal Velocity Phase Sprint Running
Marianne J.R. Gittoes and Cassie Wilson
This study aimed to develop insight into the lower extremity joint coupling motions used in the maximal velocity phase of sprint running. Two-dimensional coordinate data were used to derive sagittal plane joint angle profiles of sprint running trials. Intralimb joint coupling motions were examined using a continuous relative phase (CRP) analysis. The knee-ankle (KA) coupling was more out of phase compared with the hip-knee (HK) coupling across the step phase (mean CRP: KA 89.9° HK 34.2°) and produced a lower within-athlete CRP variability (VCRP) in stance. Touchdown (TD) produced more out-of-phase motions and a larger VCRP than toe-off. A destabilization of the lower extremity coordination pattern was considered necessary at TD to allow for the swing-to-stance transition. The key role that the KA joint motion has in the movement patterns used by healthy athletes in the maximal velocity phase of sprint running was highlighted.
Low-Back Pain and Knee Position–Related Differences on Postural Control Measures During a One-Legged Stance in Athletes
Alexandre H. Nowotny, Mariane Guizeline Calderon, Bruno Mazziotti O. Alves, Marcio R. de Oliveira, Rodrigo A. de Carvalho Andraus, Andreo F. Aguiar, Cesar F. Amorim, Guillaume Leonard, and Rubens A. da Silva
. 3 , 6 , 8 Summarizing the literature in general on individuals with CLBP, trunk postural control has been shown to be impaired while standing upright on 2 legs 3 , 12 , 13 or in a one-legged stance, 3 , 14 – 16 as well as when sitting in a challenging, unstable “wobbling” chair. 17 , 18 Most
Effect of Time and Direction Preparation on Ankle Muscle Response During Backward Translation of a Support Surface in Stance
Masakazu Matsuoka, Hiroshi Kunimura, and Koichi Hiraoka
Humans respond to translation of the support surface under their feet in stance to maintain the center of pressure within the base of support (see Jacobs et al., 2008 ; Jacobs & Horak, 2007 ; Massion, 1994 ). This response is produced by activity of the limb and trunk muscles ( Horak & Nashner
Standing on a Double-Seesaw Device is an Easy Way to Modify the Coordination Between the Two Feet for Controlling Upright Stance: Assessment Through Weight-Bearing Asymmetry
Patrice R. Rougier, Thibaud Coquard, Thierry Paillard, Clément Ankaoua, Jeanne Dury, Corentin Barthod, and Dominic Perennou
statistically significant effect was, however, reported for LU and PD mechanisms between these two feet positions ( Rougier, 2008 ). Our objective in that study was to assess to which extent the postural control strategies, previously reported for characterizing upright stance maintenance with WBA on solid
Electrical Stimulation of Distal Tibial Nerve During Stance Phase of Walking May Reverse Effects of Unilateral Paw Pad Anesthesia in the Cat
Hangue Park, Alexander N. Klishko, Kyunggeune Oh, Celina Zhang, Gina Grenga, Kinsey R. Herrin, John F. Dalton IV, Robert S. Kistenberg, Michel A. Lemay, Mark Pitkin, Stephen P. DeWeerth, and Boris I. Prilutsky
; Chung et al., 2015 ; Guertin et al., 1995 ; Lam & Pearson, 2002 ) and timing of the transitions between the swing (flexor) and stance (extensor) phases of the locomotor cycle ( Schomburg et al., 1998 ; Stecina et al., 2005 ). The lack of somatosensory feedback due to genetic mutations, viral
Comparison of Biomechanical Factors between the Kicking and Stance Limbs
Scott Ross, Kevin Guskiewicz, William Prentice, Robert Schneider, and Bing Yu
T o determine differences between contralateral limbs’ strength, proprio-ception, and kinetic and knee-kinematic variables during single-limb landing.
Hip, knee, and foot isokinetic peak torques; anterior/posterior (AP) and medial/lateral (ML) sway displacements during a balance task; and stabilization times, vertical ground-reaction force (VGRF), time to peak VGRF, and knee-flexion range of motion (ROM) from initial foot contact to peak VGRF during single-limb landing.
The kicking limb had significantly greater values for knee-extension (P = .008) and -flexion (P = .047) peak torques, AP sway displacement (P = .010), knee-flexion ROM from initial foot contact to peak VGRF (P < .001), and time to peak VGRF (P = .004). No other dependent measures were significantly different between limbs (P > .05).
The kicking limb had superior thigh strength, better proprioception, and greater knee-flexion ROM than the stance limb.