Modeling margin of stability with feet in place following a postural perturbation: Effect of altered anthropometric models for estimated extrapolated centre of mass

Publication date: Available online 30 March 2018
Source:Gait & Posture
Author(s): Keaton A. Inkol, Andrew H. Huntley, Lori Ann Vallis
BackgroundMaintaining the centre of mass (CoM) of the body within the base of support is a critical component of upright balance; the ability to accurately quantify balance recovery mechanisms is critical for many research teams.Research QuestionThe purpose of this study was to investigate how exclusion of specific body segments in an anthropometric CoM model influenced a dynamic measure of postural stability, the margin of stability (MoS) following a support-surface perturbation.MethodsHealthy young adults (n = 10) were instrumented with kinematic markers and a safety harness. Sixteen support-surface translations, scaled to ensure responses did not involve a change in base of support, were then issued (backwards, forwards, left, or right). Whole-body CoM was estimated using four variations of a 13-segment anthropometric model: i) the full-model (WFM), and three simplified models, ii) excluding upper limbs (NAr); iii) excluding upper and lower limbs (HTP); iv) pelvis CoM (CoMp). The CoM calculated for each variant was then used to estimate extrapolated CoM (xCoM) position and the resulting MoS within the plane of postural disturbance.ResultsComparisons of simplified models to the full model revealed significant differences (p < 0.05) in MoS for all models in each perturbation condition; however, the largest differences were following sagittal-based perturbations. Poor estimates of WFM MoS were most evident for HTP and CoMp models; these were associated with the greatest values of RMS/maximum error, poorest correlations, etc. The simplified models provided low-error approximates for frontal perturbations.SignificanceFindings suggest that simplified calculations of CoM can be used by researchers without reducing MoS measurement accuracy, however the degree of simplification should be context-dependent. For example,CoMp models may be appropriate for questions pertaining to frontal MoS; sagittal MoS necessitates inclusion of lower limb and HTP segments to prevent underestimation of postural stability.



https://ift.tt/2pUUaTu