No abstract

No abstract

The aim was to determine in what extent physical activity influences postural control when visual, vestibular, and/or proprioceptive systems are disrupted. Two groups of healthy older women: an active group (74.0 ± 3.8 years) who practiced physical activities and a sedentary group (74.7 ± 6.3 years) who did not, underwent 12 postural conditions consisted in altering information emanating from sensory systems by means of sensory manipulations (i.e., eyes closed, cervical collar, tendon vibration, electromyostimulation, galvanic vestibular stimulation, foam surface). The center of foot pressure velocity was recorded on a force platform. Results indicate that the sensory manipulations altered postural control. The sedentary group was more disturbed than the active group by the use of tendon vibration. There was no clear difference between the two groups in the other conditions. This study suggests that the practice of physical activities is beneficial as a means of limiting the effects of tendon vibration on postural control through a better use of the not manipulated sensory systems and/or a more efficient reweighting to proprioceptive information from regions unaffected by the tendon vibration.

The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of galvanic vestibular stimulation (GVS) on postural control for participants of different physical activity status (i.e. active and non-active). Two groups of participants were recruited: one group of participants who regularly practised sports activities (active group, n = 17), and one group of participants who did not practise physical and/or sports activities (non-active group, n = 17). They were compared in a reference condition (i.e bipedal stance with eyes open) and four vestibular manipulation condition (i.e. GVS at 0.5 mA and 3 mA, in accordance with two designs) lasting 20 seconds. The centre of foot pressure displacement velocities were compared between the two groups. The main results indicate that the regular practice of sports activities counteracts postural control disruption caused by GVS. The active group demonstrated better postural control than the non-active group when subjected to higher vestibular manipulation. The active group may have developed their ability to reduce the influence of inaccurate vestibular signals. The active participants could identify the relevant sensory input, thought a better central integration, which enables them to switch faster between sensory inputs.

The purpose of the study was to compare the effects of sensory manipulations on postural control for subjects of different ages. A young group of subjects (n = 17; 20.0 ± 1.3 years) and an old group of subjects (n = 17; 74.7 ± 6.3 years) were compared in 14 postural conditions [2 reference conditions and 12 sensory manipulation conditions: eyes closed, cervical collar, tendon vibration, electromyostimulation, galvanic vestibular stimulation (2 designs), foam surface] on a force platform. Spatio-temporal parameters of the center of foot pressure displacement were analyzed. When vestibular or proprioceptive afferences were manipulated, the old group was more disturbed than the young group. In addition, when myo-articular proprioceptive afferences were the only non-manipulated information source, the old group was also more disturbed than the young group. Hence, the inability to correctly interpret proprioceptive information and/or the impairment of myo-articular information would appear to be the major factor causing postural control deterioration. Moreover, concerning the vestibular system, it may be that aging alters the central integration of vestibular afferences. These results suggest that aging differently affects the functional ability of the different neural loops in postural control.