Human Physiology

, Volume 42, Issue 6, pp 626–633 | Cite as

Spectral analysis of the human body sway during standing on firm and compliant surfaces under different visual conditions

  • B. N. SmetaninEmail author
  • G. V. Kozhina
  • A. K. Popov
  • Y. S. Levik


Effects of different visual conditions on the vertical posture maintenance were compared in subjects standing on a firm or compliant surface. These visual conditions included a motionless visual environment (MVE), eyes-closed condition (EC), and a virtual visual environment (VVE). The VVE consisted of two planes: the foreground and background. The foreground displayed a room window with adjacent walls, and the background was represented by an aqueduct with the adjacent landscape. The VVE was destabilized by inducing either the cophased or the antiphased relation between the foreground of the visual scene and the body sway. We evaluated changes in the amplitude spectra of two elementary variables calculated from the trajectories of the plantar center of pressure (CoP) displacements in the anteroposterior and lateral directions, namely, the trajectories for the center of gravity projections on the support (the CG variable) and the differences between the CoP and CG trajectories (the CoP–CG variable).The CG trajectory was considered as a controlled variable, and the difference between the CoP and CG trajectories were considered as a variable related to the body acceleration and reflecting changes in the resultant stiffness in ankle joints. The rootmean-square (RMS) values for the spectra of both variables calculated from the body sway in the anteroposterior direction in standing on a firm support decreased proportionately with antiphased relation between the foreground and the body sway and increased with the cophased relation, compared with the RMS calculated for the MVE conditions. RMS for the spectra of the CG variable in the cophased relation were nearly the same, as in standing with eyes closed (EC), while the RMS for the spectra of the CoP–CG variable were significantly less than with EC. The body sway during standing on a compliant support significantly increased in both the anteroposterior and the lateral directions under all visual conditions. RMS for the spectra of both variables with EC increased considerably higher than in the cophased relation. Furthermore, the RMS for the spectra of the CG variable calculated from the body sway in the lateral direction on a compliant support was substantially higher in the antiphased relation than in the cophased relation, whereas the RMS for the spectra of the CoP–CG variable under both conditions had similar values. The analysis of body sway and the results under some visual conditions have shown that the amplitude characteristics of the CG and CoP–CG variables changed not always proportionately with the passage from standing on a firm support to a compliant support. It is suggested that the found disproportion of changes in these two variables is probably associated with the contribution of another additional factor to the process of postural control, the passive elastic component of musculo-articular stiffness generated by fascial-tendon tissues.


vertical posture visual effects spectral characteristics of body sway virtual 3D environment 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Assländer, L. and Peterka, R.J., Sensory reweighting dynamics in human postural control, J. Neurophysiol., 2014, vol. 111, no. 9, p. 1852.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sousa, A.S., Silva, A., and Tavares, J.M., Biomechanical and neurophysiological mechanisms related to postural control and efficiency of movement: a review, Somatosens. Mot. Res., 2012, vol. 29, no. 4, p. 131.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Faraldo-García, A., Santos-Pérez, S., Crujeiras-Casais, R., et al. Influence of age and gender in the sensory analysis of balance control, Eur. Arch. Otorhinolaryngol., 2012, vol. 269, no. 2, p. 673.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Polastri, P.F., Barela, J.A., Kiemel, T., et al., Dynamics of inter-modality re-weighting during human postural control, Exp. Brain Res., 2012, vol. 223, no. 1, p. 99.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chen, E.W., Fu, A.S., Chan, K.M., et al., Balance control in very old adults with and without visual impairment, Eur. J. Appl. Physiol., 2012, vol. 112, no. 5, p. 1631.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Giagazoglou, P., Amiridis, I.G., Zafeiridis, A., et al., Static balance control and lower limb strength in blind and sighted women, Eur. J. Appl. Physiol., 2009, vol. 107, no. 5, p. 571.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Magalhães, F.H. and Kohn, A.F., Vibration-enhanced posture stabilization achieved by tactile supplementation: may blind individuals get extra benefits?, Med. Hypotheses, 2011, vol. 77, no. 2, p. 301.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Smetanin, B.N., Kozhina, G.V., and Popov, A.K., Maintenance of the upright posture in humans upon manipulating the direction and delay of visual feedback, Neurophysiology, 2012, vol. 44, no. 5, p. 401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Keshner, E.A., Slaboda, J.C., Day, L.L., and Darvish, K., Visual conflict and cognitive load modify postural responses to vibrotactile noise, J. Neuroeng. Rehabil., 2014, no. 11, p. 6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Soechting, J. and Berthoz, A., Dynamic role of vision in the control of posture in man, Exp. Brain Res., 1979, vol. 36, no. 3, p. 551.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dokka, K., Kenyon, R.V., and Keshner, E., Influence of visual scene velocity on segmental kinematics during stance, Gait Posture, 2009, vol. 30, no. 2, p. 211.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hanssens, J.M., Allard, R., and Giraudet, G., Visually induced postural reactivity is velocity-dependent at low temporal frequencies and frequency-dependent at high temporal frequencies, Exp. Brain Res., 2013, vol. 229, no. 1, p. 75.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Joseph, J., Safavynia, S.A., and Ting, L.H., Contribution of vision to postural behaviors during continuous support-surface translations, Exp. Brain Res., 2014, vol. 232, no. 1, p. 169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Alexandrov, A.V., Frolov, A.A., Horak, F.B., et al., Feedback equilibrium control during human standing, Biol. Cybern., 2005, vol. 93, no. 5, p. 309.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Smetanin, B.N., Kozhina, G.V., and Popov, A.K., Dependence of joint stiffness on the conditions of visual control in upright undisturbed stance in humans, Neurophysiology, 2006, vol. 38, no. 2, p. 157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rougier, P., Zanders, E., and Borlet, E., Influence of visual cues on upright postural control: differentiated effects of eyelids closure, Rev. Neurol., 2003, vol. 159, no. 2, p. 180.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Collins, J.J. and De Luca, C.J., The effects of visual input on open-loop and closed-loop postural control mechanisms, Exp. Brain Res., 1995, vol. 103, no. 1, p. 151.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Smetanin, B.N., Popov, K.E., and Kozhina, G.V., Human postural responses to vibratory stimulation of calf muscles under conditions of visual inversion, Hum. Physiol., 2002, vol. 28, no. 5, p. 556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fitzpatrick, R., Burke, D., and Gandevia, S.C., taskdependent reflex responses and movement illusions evoked by galvanic vestibular stimulation in standing humans, J. Physiol., 1994, vol. 478, no. 2, p. 363.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kozhina, G.V., Levik, Yu.S., and Smetanin, B.N., Influence of a light tactile contact on vertical posture maintenance under the conditions of destabilization of visual environment, Hum. Physiol., 2015, vol. 41, no. 5, p. 98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Smetanin, B.N., Kozhina, G.V., and Popov, A.K., Human upright posture control in a virtual visual environment, Hum. Physiol., 2009, vol. 35, no. 2, p. 177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Horstmann, G.A. and Dietz, V., A basic posture control mechanism: the stabilization of the centre of gravity, Electroencephalogr. Clin. Neurophysiol., 1990, vol. 76, no. 2, p. 165.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rougier, P., Compatibility of postural behavior induced by two aspects of visual feedback: time delay and scale display, Exp. Brain Res., 2005, vol. 165, no. 2, p. 193.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Winter, D.A., Patla, A.E., Prince, F.M., et al., Stiffness control of balance in quiet standing, J. Neurophysiol., 1998, vol. 80, no. 3, p. 1211.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nafati, G. and Vuillerme, N., Decreasing internal focus of attention improves postural control during quiet standing in young healthy adults, Res. Q. Exercise Sport, 2011, vol. 82, no. 4, p. 634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Burdea, G. and Coiffet, P., Virtual Reality Technology, New York: John Wiley & Sons, Wiley-IEEE Press, 2003.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Caron, O., Faure, B., and Brenière, Y., Estimating the center of gravity of the body on the basis of the center of pressure in standing posture, J. Biomech., 1997, vol. 30, nos. 11–12, p. 1169.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Munoz, F. and Rougier, P.R., Estimation of centre of gravity movements in sitting posture: application to trunk backward tilt, J. Biomech., 2011, vol. 44, no. 9, p. 1771.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Pavlou, M., Quinn, C., Murray, K., et al., The effect of repeated visual motion stimuli on visual dependence and postural control in normal subjects, Gait Posture, 2011, vol. 33, no. 1, p. 113.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Cohen, H.S., Mulavara, A.P., Peters, B.T., et al., Standing balance tests for screening people with vestibular impairments, Laryngoscope, 2014, vol. 124, no. 2, p. 545.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Mulavara, A.P., Cohen, H.S., Peters, B.T., et al., New analyses of the sensory organization test compared to the clinical test of sensory integration and balance in patients with benign paroxysmal positional vertigo, Laryngoscope, 2013, vol. 123, no. 9, p. 2276.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Brandt, T., Kugler, G., Schniepp, R., et al., Acrophobia impairs visual exploration and balance during standing and walking, Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci., 2015. vol., 1343, p. 37.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Fouré, A., Nordez, A., McNair, P., and Cornu, C., Effects of plyometric training on both active and passive parts of the plantarflexors series elastic component stiffness of muscle-tendon complex, Eur. J. Appl. Physiol., 2011, vol. 111, no. 3, p. 539.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kubo, K., Active muscle stiffness in the human medial gastrocnemius muscle in vivo, J. Appl. Physiol., 2014, vol. 117, no. 9, p. 1020.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Fouré, A., Cornu, C., McNair, P.J., and Nordez, A., Gender differences in both active and passive parts of the plantar flexors series elastic component stiffness and geometrical parameters of the muscle-tendon complex, J. Orthop. Res., 2012, vol. 30, no. 5, p. 707.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Pleiades Publishing, Inc. 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • B. N. Smetanin
    • 1
    Email author
  • G. V. Kozhina
    • 1
  • A. K. Popov
    • 1
  • Y. S. Levik
    • 1
  1. 1.Kharkevich Institute for Information Transmission ProblemsRussian Academy of SciencesMoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations