Age-related differences in postural control: effects of the complexity of visual manipulation and sensorimotor contribution to postural performance
- 727 Downloads
Patterns of adaptive changes to the exposure to a sinusoidal visual stimulus can be influenced by stimulus characteristics as well as the integrity of the sensory and motor systems involved in the task. Sensorimotor deficits due to aging might alter postural responses to visual manipulation, especially in more demanding tasks. The purpose of this study was to compare postural control between young and older adults at different levels of complexity and to examine whether possible sensory and/or motor changes account for postural performance differences in older adults. Older and young adults were submitted to the following tests: postural control assessments, i.e., body sway during upright stance and induced by movement of a visual scene (moving room paradigm); sensory assessments, i.e., visual (acuity and contrast sensitivity) and somatosensory (tactile foot sensitivity and detection of passive ankle motion); and motor assessments, i.e., isometric ankle torque and muscular activity latency after stance perturbation. Older adults had worse sensory and motor performance, larger body sway amplitude during stance and stronger coupling between body sway and moving room motion than younger adults. Multiple linear regression analyses indicated that the threshold for the detection of passive ankle motion contributed the most to variances in body sway and this contribution was more striking when visual information was manipulated in a more unpredictable way. The present study suggests that less accurate information about body position is more detrimental to controlling body position, mainly for older adults in more demanding tasks.
KeywordsPosture Sensorimotor system Aging Moving room
The authors are grateful for financial support from FAPESP/Brazil—Grant No. 06/54022-1.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
- Barela AM, Barela JA, Rinaldi NM, de Toledo DR (2009) Influence of imposed optic flow characteristics and intention on postural responses. Mot Control 13:119–129Google Scholar
- de Freitas PB, Knight CA, Barela JA (2010) Postural reactions following forward platform perturbation in young, middle-age, and old adults. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 20(4):693–700Google Scholar
- Di Fabio RP, Emasithi A (1997) Aging and the mechanisms underlying head and postural control during voluntary motion. Physical Ther 77:458–475Google Scholar
- Horak FB, Macpherson JM (1996) Postural orientation and equilibrium. In: Rowell L, Shepherd JT (eds) Handbook of physiology. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 255–292Google Scholar
- Lee DN, Lishman JR (1975) Visual proprioceptive control of stance. J Hum Mov Stud 1:87–95Google Scholar
- Nashner LM (1981) Analysis of stance posture in humans. In: Towe AL, Luschei ES (eds) Motor coordination (handbook of behavioral neurology, vol 5). Plenum Press, New York, NY, pp 527–565Google Scholar
- Refshauge KM, Fitzpatrick RC (1995) Perception of movement at the human ankle: effects of leg position. J Physiol 448:243–248Google Scholar
- Semmes J, Weinstein S, Ghent L, Teuber H (1960) Somatosensory changes after penetrating brain wounds in man. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar