Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Differences between body movement adaptation to calf and neck muscle vibratory proprioceptive stimulation.
Gait Posture. 2009 Jul; 30(1):93-9.GP

Abstract

Adaptation is essential in maintaining stability during balance-challenging situations. We studied, in standing subjects with eyes open and closed, adaptive responses of the anteroposterior head, shoulder, hip and knee movements; gastrocnemius and tibialis anterior EMG activity and anteroposterior body posture when proprioceptive information from the neck or calf muscles underwent vibratory perturbations. After 30s of quiet stance, vibratory stimuli were applied repeatedly for 200s, and adaption to stimulation was analyzed in four successive 50s periods. Repeated neck and calf vibration significantly increased linear body movement variance at all recorded sites (p<0.001, except neck stimulation with eyes closed, EC-neck), increased tibialis anterior (p<0.001, except EC-neck) and gastrocnemious muscle activity (p<0.001). Most body movement variances and tibialis anterior EMG activity decreased significantly over time (most p-values<0.01 or lower) and overall, the body leaning forward increased from 5.5 degrees to 6.5 degrees (p<0.01). The characteristics of the responses were influenced by vision and site of vibration, e.g., neck vibration affected body posture more rapidly than calf vibration. Our findings support the notion that proprioceptive perturbations have different effects in terms of nature, degree and adaptive response depending on site of vibratory proprioceptive stimulation, a factor that needs consideration in clinical investigations and design of rehabilitation programs.

Authors+Show Affiliations

University of Plymouth, 3 Endsleigh Place, Drake Circus, Plymouth, PL4 8AA,Great Britain, United Kingdom.No affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Comparative Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Language

eng

PubMed ID

19398340

Citation

Gomez, S, et al. "Differences Between Body Movement Adaptation to Calf and Neck Muscle Vibratory Proprioceptive Stimulation." Gait & Posture, vol. 30, no. 1, 2009, pp. 93-9.
Gomez S, Patel M, Magnusson M, et al. Differences between body movement adaptation to calf and neck muscle vibratory proprioceptive stimulation. Gait Posture. 2009;30(1):93-9.
Gomez, S., Patel, M., Magnusson, M., Johansson, L., Einarsson, E. J., & Fransson, P. A. (2009). Differences between body movement adaptation to calf and neck muscle vibratory proprioceptive stimulation. Gait & Posture, 30(1), 93-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2009.03.009
Gomez S, et al. Differences Between Body Movement Adaptation to Calf and Neck Muscle Vibratory Proprioceptive Stimulation. Gait Posture. 2009;30(1):93-9. PubMed PMID: 19398340.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Differences between body movement adaptation to calf and neck muscle vibratory proprioceptive stimulation. AU - Gomez,S, AU - Patel,M, AU - Magnusson,M, AU - Johansson,L, AU - Einarsson,E J, AU - Fransson,P A, Y1 - 2009/04/23/ PY - 2008/03/18/received PY - 2009/03/16/revised PY - 2009/03/22/accepted PY - 2009/4/29/entrez PY - 2009/4/29/pubmed PY - 2009/8/14/medline SP - 93 EP - 9 JF - Gait & posture JO - Gait Posture VL - 30 IS - 1 N2 - Adaptation is essential in maintaining stability during balance-challenging situations. We studied, in standing subjects with eyes open and closed, adaptive responses of the anteroposterior head, shoulder, hip and knee movements; gastrocnemius and tibialis anterior EMG activity and anteroposterior body posture when proprioceptive information from the neck or calf muscles underwent vibratory perturbations. After 30s of quiet stance, vibratory stimuli were applied repeatedly for 200s, and adaption to stimulation was analyzed in four successive 50s periods. Repeated neck and calf vibration significantly increased linear body movement variance at all recorded sites (p<0.001, except neck stimulation with eyes closed, EC-neck), increased tibialis anterior (p<0.001, except EC-neck) and gastrocnemious muscle activity (p<0.001). Most body movement variances and tibialis anterior EMG activity decreased significantly over time (most p-values<0.01 or lower) and overall, the body leaning forward increased from 5.5 degrees to 6.5 degrees (p<0.01). The characteristics of the responses were influenced by vision and site of vibration, e.g., neck vibration affected body posture more rapidly than calf vibration. Our findings support the notion that proprioceptive perturbations have different effects in terms of nature, degree and adaptive response depending on site of vibratory proprioceptive stimulation, a factor that needs consideration in clinical investigations and design of rehabilitation programs. SN - 1879-2219 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/19398340/Differences_between_body_movement_adaptation_to_calf_and_neck_muscle_vibratory_proprioceptive_stimulation_ L2 - https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0966-6362(09)00101-5 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -