Evaluating feedback time delay during perturbed and unperturbed balance in handstand |
| |
| Institution: | 1. 601 University Drive, Department of Physical Therapy, Texas State University, San Marcos, TX 78666, USA;2. Perfect 10.0 Physical Therapy, 4311 Kilgore Lane, Austin, TX 78727, USA;1. Expert Performance and Skill Acquisition Research Group, School of Sport, Health and Applied Science, St Mary''s University, Twickenham, London, UK;2. Department of Sport and Exercise Science, University of Chichester, Chichester UK;3. Department of Health, Kinesiology and Recreation, College of Health, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, USA;4. Research Institute for Sport and Exercise Sciences, Liverpool John Moores University, UK;1. University of Trieste, Department of Life Sciences, Italy;2. De Montfort University, Division of Psychology, United Kingdom;3. University of Trieste, Department of Medicine, Surgery and Health Sciences, Italy;1. Human Movement Biomechanics Research Group, Department of Kinesiology, KU Leuven, Belgium;2. Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation Research Group, Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, KU Leuven, Belgium |
| |
| Abstract: | Feedback delays in balance are often assessed using muscle activity onset latencies in response to discrete perturbations. The purpose of the study was to calculate EMG latencies in perturbed handstand, and determine if delays are different to unperturbed handstand. Twelve national level gymnasts completed 12 perturbed and 10 unperturbed (five eyes open and five closed) handstands. Forearm EMG latencies during perturbed handstands were assessed against delay estimates calculated via: cross correlations of wrist torque and COM displacement, a proportional and derivative model of wrist torque and COM displacement and velocity (PD model), and a PD model incorporating a passive stiffness component (PS-PD model). Delays from the PD model (161 ± 14 ms) and PS-PD model (188 ± 14 ms) were in agreement with EMG latencies (165 ± 14 ms). Cross correlations of COM displacement and wrist torque provided unrealistically low estimates (5 ± 9 ms). Delays were significantly lower during perturbed (188 ± 14 ms) compared to unperturbed handstand (eyes open: 207 ± 12 ms; eyes closed: 220 ± 19 ms). Significant differences in delays and model parameters between perturbed and unperturbed handstand support the view that balance measures in perturbed testing should not be generalised to unperturbed balance. |
| |
| Keywords: | Handstand balance EMG latencies Cross correlations Regression modelling |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
