Postural control is scaled to level of postural threat
Abstract
This study investigated control of posture when standing at different surface heights above ground level. Alterations in surface height were used to modify threat to postural control. Sixty-two healthy adults (mean+/-S.D.=20.3+/-1.3 years) stood quietly on a force plate 40 cm (LOW threat), 100 cm (MEDIUM threat) or 160 cm (HIGH threat) above ground level. Each standing trial was performed with eyes open for 120 s. Postural threat was presented in ascending (n=31) or descending (n=31) order with the first threat condition in each series (LOW threat for ascending group, HIGH threat for descending group) repeated. This manipulation allowed for an examination of set effects (i.e. prior experience of postural threat) on postural control. The results demonstrated scaling of postural control variables to level of postural threat. Amplitude of centre of pressure (COP) displacement decreased and frequency of COP displacement increased linearly as postural threat increased from LOW to HIGH. The central nervous system progressively tightened control of posture as postural threat increased. Initial exposure to the HIGH or LOW threat condition influenced postural control differently. The group who received the HIGH threat condition first (descending) demonstrated increased amplitude of COP displacement in the anterior-posterior direction compared with the group who received the LOW threat condition first (ascending). A 'first trial' effect was observed when standing for two consecutive trials but only at the LOW threat condition. Decreased amplitude and increased frequency of COP displacement were observed on the first trial compared to the second trial. The results of this study demonstrated that control of posture is influenced not only by the threat to posture but also by the order in which the threat to posture is experienced.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Investigations conducted in normal, healthy people found that they used this high demand postural control strategy only in challenging balance situations such as standing at heights.
“Investigations conducted in normal, healthy people found that they used this high demand postural control strategy only in challenging balance situations such as standing at heights [1, 17, 18].”
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 25 · Cited by 360
- Authors
- Adkin, A. L., Frank, J. S., Carpenter, M. G., & Peysar, G. W.
- Affiliations
- University of Waterloo (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Adkin, Allan L
- Venue
- Gait & Posture
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2000-10
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 87-93
- ISSN
- 0966-6362 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2089001613
- Cited by
- 360
- References
- 25
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 20 · 2013: 19 · 2012: 16
- FWCI
- 21.02
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Gait & Posture (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Balance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Motor Control and Adaptation
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Embodied and Extended Cognition
- Keywords
- postural control, postural threat, surface elevation, center of pressure displacement, postural stability
- MeSH terms
- Accidental Falls, Adult, Postural Balance, Fear, Humans, Posture
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review