Training improves balance control in older adults, but the time course and neural mechanisms underlying these improvements are unclear. We studied balance robustness and performance, H-reflex gains, paired reflex depression, and co-contraction duration in ankle muscles after one and ten training sessions in 22 older adults (+65 yrs). Mediolateral balance robustness, time to balance loss in unipedal standing on a platform with decreasing rotational stiffness, improved (33%) after one session, with no further improvement after ten sessions. Balance performance, absolute mediolateral center of mass velocity, improved (18.75%) after one session in perturbed unipedal standing and (18.18%) after ten sessions in unperturbed unipedal standing. Co-contraction duration of soleus/tibialis anterior increased (16%) after ten sessions. H-reflex gain and paired reflex depression excitability did not change. H-reflex gains were lower, and soleus/tibialis anterior co-contraction duration was higher in participants with more robust balance after ten sessions, and co-contraction duration was higher in participants with better balance performance at several time-points. Changes in robustness and performance were uncorrelated with changes in co-contraction duration, H-reflex gain, or paired reflex depression. In older adults, balance robustness improved over a single session, while performance improved gradually over multiple sessions. Changes in co-contraction and excitability of ankle muscles were not exclusive causes of improved balance.

Exoskeletons often allow limited movement of the ankle joint. This could increase the chance of falling while walking, particularly on challenging surfaces, such as lateral inclines. In this study, the effect of a mobility limiting ankle brace on gait stability in the frontal plane was assessed, while participants walked on lateral inclines. The brace negatively affected gait stability when it was worn on the leg that was on the vertically lower side or ‘valley side’ of the lateral incline, which would indicate an increased risk of falling in that direction.

Purpose: The goal of this study was to assess differences in low back stabilization and underlying mechanisms between patients with low back pain (LBP) and healthy controls. It has been hypothesized that inadequate trunk stabilization could contribute to LBP through high tissue strains and/or impingement. Evidence to support this is inconsistent, and not all methods that have been used to study trunk stabilization are equally suitable. We have recently developed a method to assess intrinsic and reflexive contributions to trunk stabilization, which aims to circumvent the limitations of previous studies. Methods: Forty-nine participants suffering from chronic LBP and a control group of fifty healthy subjects participated in this study. Trunk stabilization was measured using force-controlled perturbations directly applied to the trunk. The actuator displacement and contact force between the actuator and subject were measured as well as electromyography (EMG) of the M. Longissimus. Underlying mechanisms were characterized using system identification. Results: LBP patients showed lower admittance, i.e., less displacement per unit of force applied, mainly due to higher position, velocity and acceleration feedback gains. Among patients, lower trunk admittance and higher reflex gains were associated with more negative pain-related cognitions. Conclusion: Trunk stabilization differs between LBP patients and controls, with the same perturbations causing less trunk movement in patients, due to stronger reflexes. We interpret these changes as reflecting protective behavior. Graphic abstract: These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.[Figure not available: see fulltext.].

BACKGROUND: Literature describing differences in motor control between low back pain (LBP) patients and healthy controls is very inconsistent, which may be an indication for the existence of subgroups. Pain-related psychological factors might play a role causing these differences. PURPOSE: To examine the relation between fear of movement and variability of kinematics and muscle activation during gait in LBP patients. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional experimental design. PATIENT SAMPLE: Thirty-one Chinese LBP patients. OUTCOME MEASURES: Self-report measures: Visual Analog Score for pain; TAMPA-score; Physiologic measures: electromyography, range of motion. FUNCTIONAL MEASURES: LBP history; the physical load of profession, physical activity. METHODS: Patients were divided in high and low fear of movement groups. Participants walked on a treadmill at four speeds: very slow, slow, preferred and fast. Kinematics of the thorax and the pelvis were recorded, together with the electromyography of five bilateral trunk muscle pairs. Kinematic and electromyography data were analysed in terms of stride-to-stride pattern variability. Factor analysis was applied to assess interdependence of 11 variability measures. To test for differences between groups, a mixed-design multivariate analysis of variance was conducted. RESULTS: Kinematic variability and variability of muscle activation consistently loaded on different factors and thus represented different underlying variables. No significant Group effects on variability of kinematics and muscle activation were found (Hotelling's Trace F=0.237; 0.396, p=.959;.846, respectively). Speed significantly decreased kinematic variability and increased variability in muscle activation (Hotelling's Trace F=8.363; 4.595, p<.0001; <.0001, respectively). No significant interactions between Group and Speed were found (Hotelling's Trace F=0.204; 0.100, p=.762;.963, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study do not support the hypothesis that variability in trunk kinematics and trunk muscle activation during gait in LBP patients are associated with fear of movement.

The goal of this study was to investigate the human ability to stabilize the trunk in space during pelvic tilt. Upper body sway was evoked in kneeling-seated healthy subjects by angular platform perturbations with a rotation around a virtual lowback pivot point between the L4 and L5 vertebrae. To investigate motor control modulation, variations in task instruction (balance naturally or minimize trunk sway), vision (eyes open or closed), and perturbation bandwidth (from 0.2 up to 1, 3, or 10 Hz) were applied. Cocontraction and proprioceptive muscle spindle feedback were associated with minimizing low-back flexion/extension (trunk-on-pelvis stabilization), while vestibular and visual feedback were supposed to contribute to trunk-in-space stabilization. Trunk-in-space stabilization was only observed with the minimize trunk sway task instruction, while the task instruction to balance naturally led to trunk-on-pelvis stabilization with trunk rotations even exceeding the perturbations. This indicates that vestibular feedback is used when minimizing trunk sway but has only a minor contribution during natural trunk stabilization in the sagittal plane. The eyes open condition resulted in reduced global trunk rotations and increased global trunk reflexive responses, demonstrating effective visual contributions to trunk-inspace stabilization. On the other hand, increasing perturbation bandwidth caused a decreased feedback contribution leading to deteriorated trunk-in-space stabilization.