Evaluating feedback time delay during perturbed and unperturbed balance in handstand

Blenkinsop, Glen M.; Pain, Matthew T.G.; Hiley, Michael J.

doi:10.1016/j.humov.2016.04.011

Cited by 13 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Bipedal stance was therefore found to be limited in revealing differences in postural stability due to transfer from particular training [39,40,41]. This is likely due to the somatosensory stimulation being below the physiological threshold leading to an intermittent process [42,43,44]. This implies that when attempting to establish difference in postural control between players of various sports it is necessary to design tests that are suitably challenging.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effect of contact sport expertise on postural control

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It has been demonstrated that expertise in sport influences standing balance ability. However, little is known concerning how physical contact in sport affects balance ability. The aim of this study was to examine whether differences between contact and limited-contact sport experiences results in differences in postural control. Twenty male collegiate athletes (10 soccer/contact, 10 baseball/limited contact) and ten male untrained students stood quietly on a force plate under various bipedal and unipedal conditions, with and without vision. Significant differences for sway area and COP speed were found between the soccer players and the other two groups for unipedal stances without vision. Soccer players were found to have superior postural control compared with participants involved in limited contact sport or no sport at all. Contact sports may lead to increased postural control through enhanced use of proprioceptive and vestibular information.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effect of contact sport expertise on postural control

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Examining various postures and discovering common invariant traits in the way control strategies are implemented could aid understanding of how the CNS attempts to control balance. Handstand balance performed by experienced gymnasts provides an alternative perspective to normal upright stance for understanding this complex system [ 20 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Balance control strategies during perturbed and unperturbed balance in standing and handstand

Blenkinsop¹,

Pain²,

Hiley³

2017

R. Soc. open sci.

Self Cite

108

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Insights into sensorimotor control of balance were examined by the assessment of perturbed and unperturbed balance in standing and handstand postures. During perturbed and unperturbed balance in standing, the most prevalent control strategy was an ankle strategy, which was employed for more than 90% of the time in balance. During perturbed and unperturbed balance in handstand, the most prevalent control strategy was a wrist strategy, which was employed for more than 75% of the time in balance. In both postures, these strategies may be described as a single segment inverted pendulum control strategy, where the multi-segment system is controlled by torque about the most inferior joint with compensatory torques about all superior joints acting in the same direction to maintain a fixed orientation between superior segments. In contrast to previous literature, surprisingly little time was spent in a mixed strategy, representing less than 1% of time in standing balance and approximately 2% of time in handstand balance. Findings indicate that although the central nervous system may employ a number of control strategies during a trial, these strategies are employed individually rather than simultaneously.

show abstract

“…All 46 articles were evaluated based on 16 qualification questions ( Table 3 ), yielding a Mean ± SD value of 79.7 ± 11.7 for the qualification analysis. Most of the included articles ( Radebold et al, 2000 , 2001 ; Brown et al, 2001 ; Leinonen et al, 2001 ; Adkin et al, 2002 ; Redfern et al, 2002 ; Dimitrova et al, 2004 ; Granata et al, 2004 ; Peterka and Loughlin, 2004 ; Cholewicki et al, 2005 ; Reeves et al, 2005 , 2018 ; Masani et al, 2008 ; Mochizuki et al, 2008 ; Vette et al, 2008 ; Welch and Ting, 2008 , 2009 ; Loram et al, 2009 ; Santos et al, 2010 ; Borghuis et al, 2011 ; Mohapatra et al, 2012 ; Weaver et al, 2012 ; Liebetrau et al, 2013 ; van Drunen et al, 2013 ; Kanekar and Aruin, 2014a , b ; Pereira et al, 2014 ; Valles et al, 2014 ; Aruin et al, 2015 ; Blenkinsop et al, 2016 ; Fujio et al, 2016 ; Claudino et al, 2017 ; van Dieen et al, 2018 ; Curuk et al, 2020 ; Molnar et al, 2021 ; Wang and van den Bogert, 2021 ; Mohebbi et al, 2022 ) were classified as high quality (37, 80.4%) in terms of research objectives, subjects’ characteristics, experimental protocol, data analysis and conclusion. However, the limitation of these studies was not always discussed.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Time-delay estimation in biomechanical stability: a scoping review

Shokouhyan,

Blandeau,

Wallard

et al. 2024

Front. Hum. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite its high-level of robustness and versatility, the human sensorimotor control system regularly encounters and manages various noises, non-linearities, uncertainties, redundancies, and delays. These delays, which are critical to biomechanical stability, occur in various parts of the system and include sensory, signal transmission, CNS processing, as well as muscle activation delays. Despite the relevance of accurate estimation and prediction of the various time delays, the current literature reflects major discrepancy with regards to existing prediction and estimation methods. This scoping review was conducted with the aim of characterizing and categorizing various approaches for estimation of physiological time delays based on PRISMA guidelines. Five data bases (EMBASE, PubMed, Scopus, IEEE and Web of Science) were consulted between the years of 2000 and 2022, with a combination of four related categories of keywords. Scientific articles estimating at least one physiological time delay, experimentally or through simulations, were included. Eventually, 46 articles were identified and analyzed with 20 quantification and 16 qualification questions by two separate reviewers. Overall, the reviewed studies, experimental and analytical, employing both linear and non-linear models, reflected heterogeneity in the definition of time delay and demonstrated high variability in experimental protocols as well as the estimation of delay values. Most of the summarized articles were classified in the high-quality category, where multiple sound analytical approaches, including optimization, regression, Kalman filter and neural network in time domain or frequency domain were used. Importantly, more than 50% of the reviewed articles did not clearly define the nature of the estimated delays. This review presents and summarizes these issues and calls for a standardization of future scientific works for estimation of physiological time-delay.

show abstract

Evaluating feedback time delay during perturbed and unperturbed balance in handstand

Cited by 13 publications

References 50 publications

The effect of contact sport expertise on postural control

The effect of contact sport expertise on postural control

Balance control strategies during perturbed and unperturbed balance in standing and handstand

Time-delay estimation in biomechanical stability: a scoping review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About