Effects of Shank Vibration on Lean After-Effect

Young, David R.; Layne, Charles S.

doi:10.1080/00222895.2020.1815640

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This after-effect occurs regardless of the degree of incline, the direction of incline (anterior, posterior, lateral), static standing or stepping on an incline, and will still be seen in the forward lean of the trunk and head when the individual’s legs are blocked from movement (Kluzik et al, 2007a ). Both the trunk and head lean seen with leg blocking in the post-incline period, as well as several EMG studies performed by Kluzik et al ( 2007b ) confirm that the lean adaptation seen in the post-incline period is not explainable by tonic peripheral musculature contraction; rather, the leaning appears to be a central postural adaptation that orients relative to the surface (Kluzik et al, 2007a ; Young and Layne, 2020 ; Young et al, 2020 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 70%

Immediate effect of lower extremity joint manipulation on a lower extremity somatosensory illusion: a randomized, controlled crossover clinical pilot study

Schueren

Hunger

Pham

et al. 2022

Front. Hum. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: This study explored the influence of lower extremity manipulation on the postural after-effects of standing on an inclined surface.Methods: Eight healthy individuals (28.0 ± 4.1 years) were recruited for this open-label, crossover study. Participants stood on an incline board for 3 min to develop a known form of somatosensory illusion. After randomization to either a lower-extremity joint manipulation or no intervention, participants immediately stood on a force plate for 3 min with eyes closed. After a 24-h washout period, participants completed the remaining condition. Center of pressure (CoP) position data was measured by a force plate and evaluated using statistical parametric mapping. Pathlength, mean velocity, and RMS were calculated for significant time periods and compared with corrected paired t-tests.Results: Parametric maps revealed that CoP position of control and intervention conditions differed significantly for two time periods (70–86 s—control: 0.17 ± 1.86 cm/intervention: −1.36 ± 1.54 cm; 141–177 s—control: −0.35 ± 1.61 cm/intervention: −1.93 ± 1.48 cm). CoP pathlength was also significantly decreased for the second period (control: 6.11 ± 4.81 cm/intervention: 3.62 ± 1.92 cm).Conclusion: These findings suggest that extremity manipulation may be a useful intervention for populations where CoP stability is an issue. This study contributes to the growing body of evidence that manipulation of the extremities can drive global postural changes, as well as influence standing behavior. Further, it suggests these global changes may be driven by alterations in central integration.Clinical Trial Registration:ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT Number: NCT05226715.

show abstract