Advertisement

Experimental Brain Research

, Volume 157, Issue 1, pp 49–58 | Cite as

Resolving conflicts in task demands during balance recovery: does holding an object inhibit compensatory grasping?

  • Hamid Bateni
  • Aleksandra Zecevic
  • William E. McIlroy
  • Brian E. MakiEmail author
Research Article

Abstract

The ability to reach and “grasp” (grip or touch) structures for support in reaction to instability is an important element of the postural repertoire. It is unclear, however, how the central nervous system (CNS) resolves the potential conflict between holding an object and the need to release the held object and grasp alternative support, particularly if the held object is perceived to be relevant to the task of stabilizing the body, e.g. an assistive device. This study examined whether compensatory grasping is inhibited when holding an object, and whether the influence differs when holding an assistive device (cane) versus a task-irrelevant object (top handle portion of a cane). We also investigated the influence of preloading the assistive device, to determine whether conflicting demands for arm-muscle activation (requiring disengagement of ongoing agonist or antagonist activity) would influence the inhibition of compensatory grasping. Unpredictable forward and backward platform translations were used to evoke the balancing reactions in 16 healthy young adults. A handrail was mounted to the right and foot motion was constrained by barriers, with the intent that successful balance recovery would (in large-perturbation trials) require subjects to release the held object and contact the rail with the right hand. Results showed that grasping reactions were commonly used to recover equilibrium when the hand was free (rail contact in 71% of large-perturbation trials). However, holding either the cane or canetop had a potent modulating effect: although early biceps activation was almost never inhibited completely (significant activity within 200 ms in 98% of trials), the average activation amplitude was attenuated by 30–64% and the average frequency of handrail contact was reduced by a factor of two or more. This reduced use of the rail occurred even though the consequence often involved falling against a safety harness or barriers. Handrail contact occurred least frequently when holding the cane during forward loss of balance: subjects persisted in pushing on the cane (failing to use the rail) in 93% of trials, even when the perturbations were too large to allow this strategy to be successful. Prior contraction (preloading the cane) did not influence any of these findings. Complex strategies (e.g. partial release of object) were often adopted to allow balance to be recovered without dropping the held object. Remarkably, it appears that the CNS may give priority to the ongoing task of holding an object, even when it has no stabilizing value (cane during backward falls) or any intrinsic value whatsoever (canetop).

Keywords

Arm movement Assistive device Cane Fall Grasp Mobility aid Reach Postural balance Triggered reaction 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by operating and team grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR). B.E. Maki is a CIHR Senior Investigator and W.E. McIlroy holds a Canada Research Chair in Neurorehabilitation. The authors would like to thank Yin-Yin Chung for her contributions to processing of the data.

References

  1. Allum JHJ, Carpenter MG, Honegger F, Adkin AL, Bloem BR (2002) Age-dependent variations in the directional sensitivity of balance corrections and compensatory arm movements in man. J Physiol Lond 542:643–663CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Archea J (1979) Videotape of 20 stair incidents recorded during a study performed for the National Bureau of Standards (videotape currently available from the Center for Inclusive Design and Environmental Access, School of Architecture and Planning, State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo NY). In: Archea J, Collins BL, Stahl FI (eds) Guidelines for Stair Safety, National Bureau of Standards, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  3. Bateni H, Maki BE (2004) Assistive devices for balance and mobility: benefits, demands, and adverse consequences. Arch Phys Med Rehabil (in press)Google Scholar
  4. Bateni H, Heung E, Zettel JL, McIlroy WE, Maki BE (2003a) Can use of walking frames or canes impede lateral compensatory stepping movements? Gait Posture (in press)Google Scholar
  5. Bateni H, Heung E, Zettel JL, McIlroy WE, Maki BE (2003b) Can walking aids impede compensatory stepping? In: Lord SR, Menz HB (eds) Posture and gait throughout the lifespan. International Society for Postural and Gait Research, Sydney, Australia, pp 122Google Scholar
  6. Brown LA, Frank JS (1997) Postural compensations to the potential consequences of instability: kinematics. Gait Posture 6:89–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Campbell AJ, Borrie MJ, Spears GF (1989) Risk factors for falls in a community-based prospective study of people 70 years and older. J Gerontol 44:M112–M117PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Carpenter MG, Frank JS, Silcher CP, Peysar GW (2001) The influence of postural threat on the control of upright stance. Exp Brain Res 138:210–218PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Charron PM, Kirby RL, MacLeod DA (1995) Epidemiology of walker-related injuries and deaths in the United States. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 74:237–239PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Connell BR (1995) Environmental and behavioral factors in falls among the elderly. U.S. Dept. of Veterans Affairs Rehabilitation Research and Development Service, Merit Review Project E-539-RGoogle Scholar
  11. Conover WJ, Iman RL (1981) Rank transformations as a bridge between parametric and nonparametric statistics. Am Statistician 35:124–133Google Scholar
  12. Dietz V, Noth J (1978) Pre-innervation and stretch responses of triceps brachii in man falling with and without visual control. Brain Res 124:576–579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Holliday PJ, Fernie GR, Gryfe CI, Griggs GT (1990) Video recording of spontaneous falls of the elderly (videotape currently available from the Center for Studies in Aging, Sunnybrook and Women’s College Health Sciences Centre, 2075 Bayview Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M4N 3M5). In: BE Gray (eds) Slips, stumbles and falls: pedestrian footwear and surfaces (ASTM STP 1103). American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, pp 7–16Google Scholar
  14. Horak FB, Moore SP (1993) The effect of prior leaning on human postural responses. Gait Posture 1:203–210Google Scholar
  15. Hsiao ET, Robinovitch SN (1998) Common protective movements govern unexpected falls from standing height. J Biomech 31:1–9Google Scholar
  16. Jeka JJ (1997) Light touch contact as a balance aid. Phys Ther 77:476–487PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Mahoney J (1994) Risk of falls after hospital discharge. J Am Geriatr Soc 42:269–74PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Maki BE, McIlroy WE (1997) The role of limb movements in maintaining upright stance: the “change-in-support” strategy. Phys Ther 77:488–507PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Maki BE, Bartlett SA, Fernie GR (1984) Influence of stairway handrail height on the ability to generate stabilizing forces and moments. Hum Factors 26:705–714Google Scholar
  20. Maki BE, Whitelaw RS, McIlroy WE (1993) Does frontal-plane asymmetry in compensatory postural responses represent preparation for stepping? Neurosci Lett 149:87–90CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Maki BE, Holliday PJ, Topper AK (1994) A prospective study of postural balance and risk of falling in an ambulatory and independent elderly population. J Gerontol 49:M72–M84PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Maki BE, McIlroy WE, Perry SD (1996) Influence of lateral destabilization on compensatory stepping responses. J Biomech 29:343–353PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Maki BE, Perry SD, McIlroy WE (1998) Efficacy of handrails in preventing stairway falls: a new experimental approach. Safety Sci 28:189–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Maki BE, Edmondstone MA, McIlroy WE (2000) Age-related differences in laterally directed compensatory stepping behavior. J Gerontol 55A:M270–M277Google Scholar
  25. Mann WC, Granger C, Hurren D, Tomita M, Charvat B (1995a) An analysis of problems with canes encountered by elderly persons. Phys Occup Ther Geriatr 13:25–48Google Scholar
  26. Mann WC, Hurren D, Tomita M, Charvat B (1995b) An analysis of problems with walkers encountered by elderly persons. Phys Occup Ther Geriatr 13:1–24Google Scholar
  27. McDowd JM (1997) Inhibition in attention and aging. J Gerontol 52:P265–P273Google Scholar
  28. McIlroy WE, Maki BE (1994) Compensatory arm movements evoked by transient perturbations of upright stance. In: Taguchi K, Igarashi M, Mori S (eds) Vestibular and neural front. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 489–492Google Scholar
  29. McIlroy WE, Maki BE (1995) Early activation of arm muscles follows external perturbations of upright stance. Neurosci Lett 184:177–180PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. McIlroy WE, Maki BE (1996) Age-related changes in compensatory stepping in response to unpredictable perturbations. J Gerontol 51A:M289–M296Google Scholar
  31. McIlroy WE, Maki BE (1997) Preferred placement of the feet during quiet stance: development of a standardized foot placement for balance testing. Clin Biomech 12:66–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Morse JM, Tylko SJ, Dixon HA (1987) Characteristics of the fall-prone patient. Gerontologist 27:516–522PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Murphy J, Isaacs B (1982) The post-fall syndrome: a study of 36 elderly patients. Gerontology 28:265–270PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Nashner LM, Cordo PJ (1981) Relation of automatic postural responses and reaction-time voluntary movements of human leg muscles. Exp Brain Res 43:395–405PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Nashner LM, McCollum G (1985) The organization of human postural movements: a formal basis and experimental synthesis. Behav Brain Sci 8:135–172Google Scholar
  36. Quant S, Misiaszek JE, Maki BE, Verrier MC, McIlroy WE (2001) The effect of ongoing lower-limb movement on the initiation of compensatory stepping reactions. Soc Neurosci Abstr 27:305.6Google Scholar
  37. Sinha T, Maki BE (1996) Effect of forward lean on postural ankle dynamics. IEEE Trans Rehabil Eng 4:348–359PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Smidt GL (1990) Gait in rehabilitation. Churchill Livingstone, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  39. Stelmach GE, Populin L, Muller F (1990) Postural muscle onset and voluntary movements in the elderly. Neurosci Lett 117:188–193CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Ware JE Jr, Donald Sherbourne C (1992) The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). Med Care 30:473–483PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Winter DA (1979) Biomechanics of human movement. Wiley-Interscience, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  42. Wright DL, Kemp TL (1992) The dual-task methodology and assessing the attentional demands of ambulation with walking devices. Phys Ther 72:306–312PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hamid Bateni
    • 1
    • 2
  • Aleksandra Zecevic
    • 1
  • William E. McIlroy
    • 1
    • 3
  • Brian E. Maki
    • 1
    • 2
    • 4
    • 5
    Email author
  1. 1.Centre for Studies in AgingSunnybrook and Women’s College Health Sciences CentreTorontoCanada
  2. 2.School of Rehabilitation SciencesMcGill UniversityMontrealCanada
  3. 3.Graduate Department of Rehabilitation ScienceUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  4. 4.Department of Surgery and Institute of Medical ScienceUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  5. 5.Centre for Studies in AgingSunnybrook and Women’s College Health Sciences CentreTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations