Muscle activity of leg muscles during unipedal stance on therapy devices with different stability properties

Do Progressive Sensorimotor Training Devices Produce A Graded Increase in Centre of Mass Displacement During Unipedal Balance Exercises in Athletes

“…It is well known that introducing instability during static balance increases sensory input, promotes central nervous system processing, as well as motor actions and reactions to moderate motor commands. Neurophysiological studies have demonstrated central adaptations at multiple levels due to exercises using unstable surfaces [25], including increased co-activation of agonist and antagonist muscles that are related to the level of instability [12,26,27]. Although coaches and sports trainers generally agree on qualitative ratings of instability devices, objective quantification of the grade of instability and the challenge imposed on postural equilibrium by these devices is currently COM displacement during stance on the most stable balance pad (ST1) was significantly correlated with that on the intermediate (ST2) balance pad (r = 0.79, p < 0.001).…”

“…Four different instability training devices typically used in sensorimotor training of athletes were evaluated (Figure 1), three Balance Pads (TheraBand ® Stability Trainers, The Hygenic Corporation, Akron, USA) and an oscillatory platform (PM, Posturomed, Haider Bioswing GmbH, Pullenreuth, Germany) [12,18]. According to the manufacturer, the stability training pads provide a progressive level of instability from easy (ST1) through intermediate (ST2) to difficult (ST3).…”

“…In the sports performance and rehabilitation setting, this is often achieved through using an ever-growing number of instability devices [9]. Although sensorimotor exercises performed on an unstable surface have generally been shown to promote synergistic neuromuscular activity [10][11][12], to date, most studies evaluating the effect of instability on neuromuscular training have focused on aspects of muscular strength [13][14][15], rather than proprioception and balance per se [16]. Moreover, in a systematic review of sensorimotor training programs, Lesinski et al [17] identified that optimal training parameters for steady-state balance improvement included a training period of 11-12 weeks, involving 2 sets of 4 exercises, each with a duration of 20-40 s per exercise, undertaken at a frequency of 3 to 6 times per week.…”

“…This study aimed to quantify the challenge to postural equilibrium provided by four different instability training devices that are typically used to improve sensorimotor control in athletes; three balance pads of progressive stiffness and an oscillatory platform [12,18]. As body-worn accelerometers positioned over the lumbar spine allow field-based measures and have been shown to accurately assess the movement of the body's center of mass (COM) during balance training [19,20], this approach was used to compare the level of instability provided by each balance device.…”

Comparison of trunk muscle activity according to hip abduction angle during plank exercise

“…To further increase the activation of trunk muscles, it is necessary to increase the level of instability [24][25][26]. It has been suggested that the use of dynamic cushioning on the toe or elbow with plank exercises to create instability contributes to a greater change in trunk muscle activation [9], there was greater RA and EO muscle activity in the plank with one leg suspended in a supporting device compared to the normal plank position [6], and greater anterior trunk muscle activity has been reported during plank exercises with the upper limbs placed on an unstable support surface compared to the normal plank [27].…”