Advertisement

Experimental Brain Research

, Volume 237, Issue 2, pp 547–555 | Cite as

Attentional cost in additional visual feedback protocols in healthy young subjects

  • Patrice R. RougierEmail author
  • Paul-Henri Fleury
  • Baptiste Tollenaere
Research Article
  • 19 Downloads

Abstract

Additional visual feedback (VFB) is a technique allowing improved postural stability in young healthy individuals despite an increased muscular activity, the two trends being assessed through center-of-gravity (CGv) and differences between CGv and center-of-pressure (CP) movements (CP–CGv), respectively. These two opposing effects are likely explained by the respective contribution of automatic and voluntary controls and in turn the neural circuits involved. To specify these specific contributions, a dual-task protocol was set up, consisting in adding to VFB a navigation task performed at the maximum cognitive capacities of the subjects who were evaluated beforehand. Overall, the protocol comprises six conditions: three visual tasks (eyes open without VFB, VFBBW based on body-weight distribution, VFBCP based on CP displacements) associated with or without a cognitive task. Variances of CP–CGv and CGv movements, along the mediolateral (ML) and anteroposterior (AP) axes, and parameters from fractional Brownian motion modeling (transition point coordinates and scaling regimes to assess the level of deterministic or stochastic activity) were used to assess the postural behaviors. The results show that during VFBCP, the dual tasks protocol infers a decreased contribution of deterministic activity in CP–CGv movements, inducing decreased variances, and alters the correction of the CGv over the longest Δt but nonetheless without changing CGv variances. Disturbing the subject’s attention during the VFBBW condition induces decreased CP–CGv and CGv movements along the ML and AP axes, respectively. These data demonstrate the high level of attention induced by VFB protocols. If the tonic postural activity, expressed through CP–CGv movements, decreases whatever VFB condition along both the ML and AP axes, the effects on CGv movement appear to be mostly related to the additional information (BW or CP) provided. Overall, if too much voluntary control in upright stance maintenance is detrimental for the magnitudes of the CP–CGv movements, it appears beneficial for those of the CGv movements. By emphasizing the role of automatic and voluntary controls in VFB protocols, these insights document the neural circuits involved in such protocols and specify their conditions of use.

Keywords

Upright stance control Healthy subjects Additional visual feedback Attention Center-of-pressure Center-of-gravity Cognitive dual-task Fractional Brownian motion modeling 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors are pleased to thank L. Northrup and C. Rougier for editing the text.

Funding

This research did not receive any specific Grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing financial interest.

References

  1. Bernard-Demanze L, Dumitrescu M, Jimeno P, Borel L, Lacour M (2009) Age-related changes in posture control are differentially affected by postural and cognitive task complexity. Curr Aging Sci 2(2):139–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boudrahem S, Rougier PR (2009) Relation between postural control assessment with eyes open and centre of pressure visual feedback effects in healthy individuals. Exp Brain Res 195(1):145–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brenière Y (1996) Why we walk the way we do? J Mot Behav 28:291–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brenière Y, Do MC, Bouisset S (1987) Are dynamic phenomena prior to stepping essential to walking? J Mot Behav 19:62–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Caron O, Faure B, Brenière Y (1997) Estimating the centre of gravity of the body on the basis of the centre of pressure in standing posture. J Biomech 30:1169–1171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Collins JJ, de Luca CJ (1993) Open-loop and closed-loop control of posture: a random-walk analysis of center of pressure trajectory. Exp Brain Res 95:308–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Drew T, Prentice S, Schepens B (2004) Cortical and brainstem control of locomotion. Progr Brain Res 143:251–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Genthon N, Rougier P (2005) Influence of an asymmetrical body weight distribution on the control of undisturbed upright stance. J Biomech 38(10):2037–2049CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Genthon N, Gissot AS, Froger J, Rougier P, Perennou D (2008) Posturography in stroke patients: estimating the percentage of body weight on each foot from a single force platform. Stroke 39:489–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hughlings-Jackson J (1873) On the anatomical and physiological localization of movements in the brain. Lancet 101:162–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kennedy MW, Crowell CR, Striegel AD, Villano M, Schmiedeler JP (2013) Relative efficacy of various strategies for visual feedback in standing balance activities. Exp Brain Res 230:117–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lacour M, Bernard-Demanze L, Dumitrescu M (2008) Posture control, aging, and attention resources: models and posture-analysis methods. Neurophysiol Clin Clin Neurophysiol 38:411–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Maki BE, McIlroy WE (2007) Cognitive demands and cortical control of human balance-recovery reactions. J Neural Trans 114(10):1279–1296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mandelbrot BB, van Ness JW (1968) Fractional Brownian motions, fractional noises and applications. SIAM Rev 10:422–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mori S (1987) Integration of posture and locomotion in acute decerebrate cats and in awake, freely moving cats. Prog Neurobiol 28:161–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Richer N, Saunders D, Polskaia N, Lajoie Y (2017) The effects of attentional focus and cognitive tasks on postural sway may be the result of automaticity. Gait Posture 54:45–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Riley MA, Wong S, Mitra S, Turvey MT (1997) Common effects of touch and vision on postural parameters. Exp Brain Res 117:165–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Riley MA, Baker AA, Schmit JM (2003) Inverse relation between postural variability and difficulty of a concurrent short-term memory task. Brain Res Bull 62:191–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rougier P (1999) Automatic determination of the transition between successive control mechanisms in upright stance assessed by modelling of the centre of pressure. Arch Physiol Biochem 107:35–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rougier PR (2003) Visual feedback induces opposite effects on elementary centre of gravity and centre of pressure minus centre of gravity motions in undisturbed upright stance. Clin Biomech 18(4):341–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rougier PR (2004) Optimising the visual feedback technique for improving upright stance maintenance by delaying its display: behavioural effects on healthy adults. Gait Posture 19:154–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rougier PR (2005) Compatibility of postural behaviors induced by two parameters of visual feedback: time delay and scale display. Exp Brain Res 165:193–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rougier PR (2007a) How visual feedback of decomposed movements of the centre of pressure trajectories affects undisturbed postural control of healthy individuals. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 54:813–820CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rougier PR (2007b) Relative contribution of the pressure variations under the feet and body weight distribution over both legs in the control of upright stance. J Biomech 40(11):2477–2482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rougier PR (2009) Undisturbed upright stance control in healthy adults is achieved differently along antero-posterior mediolateral axes: evidence from visual feedback of various signals from center of pressure trajectories. J Mot Behav 41:197–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rougier PR, Bonnet C (2016) How providing more or less time to solve a cognitive task interferes with upright stance control; a posturographic analysis on healthy young adults. Hum Mov Sci 47:106–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rougier PR, Boudrahem S (2010) Effects of visual feedback of center-of-pressure displacements on undisturbed upright postural control of hemiparetic stroke patients. Restor Neurol Neurosci 28(6):749–759Google Scholar
  28. Rougier PR, Caron O (2000) Centre of gravity motions and ankle joint stiffness control in upright undisturbed stance modeled through a fractional Brownian motion framework. J Mot Behav 32(4):405–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rougier PR, Burdet C, Farenc I, Berger L (2001) Backward and forward leaning postures modelled by an fBm framework. Neurosci Res 41(1):41–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rougier P, Farenc I, Berger L (2004) Modifying the gain of the visual feedback affects undisturbed upright stance control. Clin Biomech 19:858–867CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Szczepańska-Gieracha J, Chamela-Bilińska D, Kuczyński M (2012) Altered postural control in persons with cognitive impairment during visual feedback tasks. Gait Posture 35:312–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. van den Heuvel MRC, Balasubramaniam R, Daffertshofer A, Longtin A, Beek PJ (2009) Delayed visual feedback reveals distinct time scales in balance control. Neurosci Lett 452:37–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Vuillerme N, Nafati G (2007) How attentional focus on body sway affects postural control during quiet standing. Psychol Res 71:192–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Winter DA, Prince F, Frank JS, Powell C, Zabjek KF (1996) Unified theory regarding A/P and M/L balance in quiet standing. J Neurophysiol 75:2334–2343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Yeh TT, Boulet J, Cluff T, Balasubramaniam R (2010) Contributions of delayed visual feedback and cognitive task load to postural dynamics. Neurosci Lett 481:173–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Yeh TT, Cluff T, Balasubramaniam R (2014) Visual reliance for balance control in older adults persists when visual information is disrupted by artificial feedback delays. PLoS One 9(3):e91554CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Patrice R. Rougier
    • 1
    Email author
  • Paul-Henri Fleury
    • 1
  • Baptiste Tollenaere
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratoire Interdisciplinaire de Biologie de la Motricité, EA 7424Université de Savoie-Mont-BlancLe Bourget du Lac cedexFrance

Personalised recommendations