Skip to main content

Effects of Destabilization of Visual Environment Perception on the Maintenance of Upright Stance by Humans on Different Support Surfaces

Neurophysiology volume 47, pages 391–401 (2015)Cite this article

We compared characteristics of the maintenance of human upright stance under conditions of a real visual environment (VE) and “immersion” into a virtual visual environment (VVE). The foreground of the latter corresponded to the window in the room, while the background was a view of the aqueduct with the adjacent terrain. Destabilization of the VVE was created by “coupling” of the foreground position with oscillations of the subject’s body within the sagittal plane. We measured elementary variables calculated according to the trajectory of the center of feet pressure (CFP); these variables were: (i) displacement of the vertical projection of the center of gravity (CGv) and (ii) difference between the positions of the CFP and CGv (variables CGv and CFP – CGv). When standing on a rigid support surface, the root mean square (RMS) of the spectra of oscillations of both variables decreased in the case of an antiphase relation between displacements of the VE foreground with oscillations of the body and increased in the case of an inphase relation between these variables, as compared with the RMS in the maintenance of upright stance under conditions of an immobile VE (ImVE). Under conditions of the inphase relation, however, there were no dramatic disorders in the vertical stance; maximum oscillations of the body in this case did not exceed values typical of the upright stance with the eyes closed (EC). When the upright stance was maintained on a squeezable support, body oscillations increased significantly under all visual conditions, and the difference between the RMS of the CGv spectra obtained for the conditions of the inphase relation and EC became statistically significant. In the case of standing on a squeezable support, RMSs of the CFP – CGv variable at the antiphase relation of the VVE foreground were greater than those at the inphase relation. At the same time, the RMS of the CGv spectra were, vice versa, greater at the inphase relation. Thus, upon variation of the conditions for the vertical stance maintenance, the amplitude characteristics of elementary variables (CGv and CFP – CGv) determining the CFP on a support can vary in both a parallel and an independent manner. These variables can be controlled not only by coupled but also by independent (uncoupled) mechanisms controlling their amplitude/frequency parameters.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price includes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

References

  1. A. S. Edwarts, “Body sway and vision,” J. Exp. Psychol., 36, No. 4, 526-535 (1946).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2. A. Nardone, M. Galante, B. Lucas, and M. Schieppati, “Stance control is not affected by paresis and reflex hyperexcitability: the case of spastic patients,” J. Neurol. Neurosurg., Psychiat., 70, No. 5, 635-643 (2001).

  3. 3. B. N. Smetanin, K. E. Popov, and G. V. Kozhina, “Dependence of joint stiffness on the conditions of visual control in upright undisturbed stance in humans,” Neurophysiology, 38, No. 2, 157-163 (2006).

  4. A. Mirka and F. O. Black, “Clinical application of dynamic posturography for evaluating sensory integration and vestibular dysfunction,” in: Dizziness and Balance Disorders, K. Arenberg (ed.), Kugler Publ., Amsterdam, New York (1993), pp. 381-388.

  5. 5. M. Guerraz, L. Yardley, P. Bertholon, et al., “Visual vertigo: symptom assessment, spatial orientation and postural control,” Brain, 124, No. 8, 1646-1656 (2001).

  6. 6. U. Oppenheim, R. Kohen-Raz, D. Alex, et al., “Postural characteristics of diabetic neuropathy,” Diabetes Care, 22, No. 2, 328-332 (1999).

  7. 7. K. H. Mauritz, J. Dichgans, and A. Hufschmidt, “Quantitative analysis of stance in late cortical cerebellar atrophy of the anterior lobe and other forms of cerebellar ataxia,” Brain, 102, No. 3, 461-482 (1979).

  8. D. N. Lee and J. R. Lishman, “Visual proprioceptive control of stance,” J. Hum. Mov. Stud., 1, No. 1, 87-95 (1974).

  9. J. Soechting and A. Berthoz, “Dynamic role of vision in the control o f posture in man,” Exp. Brain Res., 36, No. 3, 551-561 (1979).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. A. Berthoz, M. Lacour, J. F. Soechting, and P. P. Vidal, “The role of vision in the control of posture during linear motion,” Prog. Brain Res., 50, No. 1, 197-209 (1979).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. T. M. H. Dijkstra, G. Schöner, and C. C. A. M. Gielen, “Temporal stability of the action-perception cycle for postural control in a moving visual environment,” Exp. Brain Res. , 97, No. 6, 477-486 (1994).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. T. M. H. Dijkstra, G. Schöner, M. A. Giese, and C. C. A. M. Gielen, “Frequency dependence of the action-perception cycle for postural control in a moving visual environment: relative phase dynamics,” Biol. Cybern., 71, No. 6, 489-501 (1994).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 13. K. Dokka, R. V. Kenyon, and E. A. Keshner, “Influence of visual scene velocity on segmental kinematics during stance,” Gait Posture, 30, No. 2, 211-221 (2009).

  14. V. S. Gurfinkel, Ya. M. Kots, and M. L. Shik, Postural Control in Humans, Nauka, Moscow (1965).

  15. J. J. Collins and C. J. De Luca, “The effects of visual input on open-loop and closed-loop postural control mechanisms,” Exp. Brain Res., 103, No. 1, 151-163 (1995).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. B. N. Smetanin, K. E. Popov, and G. V. Kozhina, “Postural reactions to vibratory stimulation of calf muscles under condition of visual inversion in human,” Fiziol. Chelov., 28, No. 5, 53-58 (2002).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. R. Fitzpatrick, D. Burke, and S. C. Gandevia, “Taskdependent reflex responses and movement illusions evoked by galvanic vestibular stimulation in standing humans,” J. Physiol., 478, No. 2, 363-372 (1994).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. G. A. Horstmann and V. Dietz, “A basic posture control mechanism: the stabilization of the centre of gravity,” Electroencephalogr. Clin. Neurophysiol., 76, No. 2, 165-176 (1990).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. P. Rougier, “Compatibility of postural behavior induced by two aspects of visual feedback: time delay and scale display,” Exp. Brain Res., 165, No. 2, 193-202 (2005).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. D. A. Winter, A. E. Patla, F. Prince, et al., “Stiffness control of balance in quiet standing,” J. Neurophysiol., 80, No. 3, 1211-1221 (1998).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. N. Vuillerme and G. Nafati, “How attentional focus on body sway affects postural control during quiet standing,” Psychol. Res., 71, No. 2, 192-200 (2007).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. S. V. Klimenko, I. N. Nikitin, and L. D. Nikitina, Avango: A system for the Development of Visual Environments, Inst. Phys. Tech. Inform., Moscow, Protvino (2006).

  23. B. N. Smetanin, G. V. Kozhina, and A. K. Popov, “Human upright posture control in a virtual visual environment,” Fiziol. Chelov., 35, No. 2, 54-59 (2009).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. G. Burdea and P. Coiffet, Virtual Reality Technology, John Wiley & Sons, New York (1994).

    Google Scholar 

  25. K. E. Popov, G. V. Kozhina, B. N. Smetanin, and V. Y. Shlikov, “Postural responses to combined vestibular and hip proprioceptive stimulation in man,” Eur. J. Neurosci., 11, No. 9, 3307-3311 (1999).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. 26. B. N. Smetanin, G. V. Kozhina, and A. K. Popov, “Maintenance of the upright posture in humans upon manipulating the direction and delay of visual feedback,” Neurophysiology, 44, No. 5, 401-408 (2012).

  27. Y. Brenière, “Why we walk the way we do” J. Mot. Behav., 28, No. 2, 291-298 (1996).

  28. O. Caron, B. Faure, and Y. Brenière, “Estimating the center of gravity of the body on the basis of the center of pressure in standing posture,” J. Biomech., 30, 1169-1171 (1997).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. P. Rougier and I. Farenc, “Adaptative effects of loss of vision on upright undisturbed stance,” Brain Res., 871, No. 2, 165-174 (2000).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. P. Rougier and O. Caron, “Centre of gravity motions and ankle joint stiffness control in upright undisturbed stance modeled through fractional Brownian motion framework,” J. Mot. Behav., 32, No. 4, 405-413 (2000).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Kharkevich Institute for Information Transmission Problems of the RAS, Moscow, Russia

    B. N. Smetanin, G. V. Kozhina & A. K. Popov

Authors
  1. B. N. Smetanin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. G. V. Kozhina
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. A. K. Popov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to B. N. Smetanin.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Smetanin, B.N., Kozhina, G.V. & Popov, A.K. Effects of Destabilization of Visual Environment Perception on the Maintenance of Upright Stance by Humans on Different Support Surfaces. Neurophysiology 47, 391–401 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11062-016-9547-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11062-016-9547-0

Keywords

  • upright stance
  • stabilography
  • postural reactions
  • virtual visual environment (VVE)
  • visual feedback