Active trunk stiffness increases with co-contraction.

Trunk dynamics, including stiffness, mass and damping were quantified during trunk extension exertions with and without voluntary recruitment of antagonistic co-contraction. The objective of this study was to empirically evaluate the influence of co-activation on trunk stiffness. Muscle activity associated with voluntary co-contraction has been shown to increase joint stiffness in the ankle and elbow. Although biomechanical models assume co-active recruitment causes increase trunk stiffness it has never been empirically demonstrated. Small trunk displacements invoked by pseudorandom force disturbances during trunk extension exertions were recorded from 17 subjects at two co-contraction conditions (minimal and maximal voluntary co-contraction recruitment). EMG data were recorded from eight trunk muscles as a baseline measure of co-activation. Increased EMG activity confirms that muscle recruitment patterns were different between the two co-contraction conditions. Trunk stiffness was determined from analyses of impulse response functions (IRFs) of trunk dynamics wherein the kinematics were represented as a second-order behavior. Trunk stiffness increased 37.8% (p < 0.004) from minimal to maximal co-activation. Results support the assumption used in published models of spine biomechanics that recruitment of trunk muscle co-contraction increases trunk stiffness thereby supporting conclusions from those models that co-contraction may contribute to spinal stability.     

Fear of Movement Is Related to Trunk Stiffness in Low Back Pain

Background

Psychological features have been related to trunk muscle activation patterns in low back pain (LBP). We hypothesised higher pain-related fear would relate to changes in trunk mechanical properties, such as higher trunk stiffness.

Objectives

To evaluate the relationship between trunk mechanical properties and psychological features in people with recurrent LBP.

Methods

The relationship between pain-related fear (Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia, TSK; Photograph Series of Daily Activities, PHODA-SeV; Fear Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire, FABQ; Pain Catastrophizing Scale, PCS) and trunk mechanical properties (estimated from the response of the trunk to a sudden sagittal plane forwards or backwards perturbation by unpredictable release of a load) was explored in a case-controlled study of 14 LBP participants. Regression analysis (r ²) tested the linear relationships between pain-related fear and trunk mechanical properties (trunk stiffness and damping). Mechanical properties were also compared with t-tests between groups based on stratification according to high/low scores based on median values for each psychological measure.

Results

Fear of movement (TSK) was positively associated with trunk stiffness (but not damping) in response to a forward perturbation (r² = 0.33, P = 0.03), but not backward perturbation (r² = 0.22, P = 0.09). Other pain-related fear constructs (PHODA-SeV, FABQ, PCS) were not associated with trunk stiffness or damping. Trunk stiffness was greater for individuals with high kinesiophobia (TSK) for forward (P = 0.03) perturbations, and greater with forward perturbation for those with high fear avoidance scores (FABQ-W, P = 0.01).

Conclusions

Fear of movement is positively (but weakly) associated with trunk stiffness. This provides preliminary support an interaction between biological and psychological features of LBP, suggesting this condition may be best understood if these domains are not considered in isolation.     

Trunk stiffness increases with steady-state effort

Trunk stiffness was measured in healthy human subjects as a function of steady-state preload efforts in different horizontal loading directions. Since muscle stiffness increases with increased muscle activation associated with increasing effort, it is believed that coactivation of muscles helps to stiffen and stabilize the trunk. This paper tested whether increased steady-state preload effort increases trunk stiffness. Fourteen young healthy subjects each stood in an apparatus with the pelvis immobilized. They were loaded horizontally at directions of 0, 45, 90, 135 and 180 degrees to the forward direction via a thoracic harness. Subjects first equilibrated with a steady-state load of 20 or 40% of their maximum extension effort. Then a sine-wave force perturbation of nominal amplitude of 7.5 or 15% of maximum effort and nominal period of 250ms was applied. Both the applied force and subsequent motion were recorded. Effective trunk mass and trunk-driving point stiffness were estimated by fitting the experimental data to a second-order differential equation of the trunk dynamic behavior. The mean effective trunk mass was 14.1kg (s.d.=4.7). The trunk-driving point stiffness increased on average 36.8% (from 14.5 to 19.8N/mm) with an increase in the nominal steady-state preload effort from 20 to 40% (F(1,13)=204.96, p<0.001). There was a smaller, but significant variation in trunk stiffness with loading direction. The measured increase in trunk stiffness probably results from increased muscle stiffness with increased muscle activation at higher steady-state efforts.     

Torso flexion modulates stiffness and reflex response.

Neuromuscular factors that contribute to spinal stability include trunk stiffness from passive and active tissues as well as active feedback from reflex response in the paraspinal muscles. Trunk flexion postures are a recognized risk factor for occupational low-back pain and may influence these stabilizing control factors. Sixteen healthy adult subjects participated in an experiment to record trunk stiffness and paraspinal muscle reflex gain during voluntary isometric trunk extension exertions. The protocol was designed to achieve trunk flexion without concomitant influences of external gravitational moment, i.e., decouple the effects of trunk flexion posture from trunk moment. Systems identification analyses identified reflex gain by quantifying the relation between applied force disturbances and time-dependent EMG response in the lumbar paraspinal muscles. Trunk stiffness was characterized from a second order model describing the dynamic relation between the force disturbances versus the kinematic response of the torso. Trunk stiffness increased significantly with flexion angle and exertion level. This was attributed to passive tissue contributions to stiffness. Reflex gain declined significantly with trunk flexion angle but increased with exertion level. These trends were attributed to correlated changes in baseline EMG recruitment in the lumbar paraspinal muscles. Female subjects demonstrated greater reflex gain than males and the decline in reflex gain with flexion angle was greater in females than in males. Results reveal that torso flexion influences neuromuscular factors that control spinal stability and suggest that posture may contribute to the risk of instability injury.     

Altered trunk muscle coordination during rapid trunk flexion in people in remission of recurrent low back pain

People with a history of low back pain (LBP) are at high risk to encounter additional LBP episodes. During LBP remission, altered trunk muscle control has been suggested to negatively impact spinal health. As sudden LBP onset is commonly reported during trunk flexion, the aim of the current study is to investigate whether dynamic trunk muscle recruitment is altered in LBP remission. Eleven people in remission of recurrent LBP and 14 pain free controls performed cued trunk flexion during a loaded and unloaded condition. Electromyographic activity was recorded from paraspinal (lumbar and thoracic erector spinae, latissimus dorsi, deep and superficial multifidus) and abdominal muscles (obliquus internus, externus and rectus abdominis) with surface and fine-wire electrodes. LBP participants exhibited higher levels of co-contraction of flexor/extensor muscles, lower agonistic abdominal and higher antagonistic paraspinal muscle activity than controls, both when data were analyzed in grouped and individual muscle behavior. A sub-analysis in people with unilateral LBP (n = 6) pointed to opposing changes in deep and superficial multifidus in relation to the pain side. These results suggest that dynamic trunk muscle control is modified during LBP remission, and might possibly increase spinal load and result in earlier muscle fatigue due to intensified muscle usage. These negative consequences for spinal health could possibly contribute to recurrence of LBP.     

A biomechanical model to simulate the effect of a high vertical loading on trunk flexural stiffness

A human trunk model was developed to simulate the effect of a high vertical loading on trunk flexural stiffness. A force–length relationship is attributed to each muscle of the multi-body model. Trunk stiffness and muscle forces were evaluated experimentally and numerically for various applied loads. Experimental evaluation of trunk stiffness was carried out by measuring changes in reaction force following a sudden horizontal displacement at the T10 level prior to paraspinal reflexes induction. Results showed that the trunk stiffness increases under small applied loads, peaks when the loads were further increased and decreases when higher loads are applied. A sensitivity analysis to muscle force–length relationship is provided to determine the model's limitations. This model pointed out the importance of taking into account the changes in muscle length to evaluate the effect of spinal loads beyond the safe limit that cannot be evaluated experimentally and to predict the trunk instability under vertical load.     

Individuals with non-specific low back pain use a trunk stiffening strategy to maintain upright posture

There is increasing evidence that individuals with non-specific low back pain (LBP) have altered movement coordination. However, the relationship of this neuromotor impairment to recurrent pain episodes is unknown. To assess coordination while minimizing the confounding influences of pain we characterized automatic postural responses to multi-directional support surface translations in individuals with a history of LBP who were not in an active episode of their pain. Twenty subjects with and 21 subjects without non-specific LBP stood on a platform that was translated unexpectedly in 12 directions. Net joint torques of the ankles, knees, hips, and trunk in the frontal and sagittal planes as well as surface electromyographs of 12 lower leg and trunk muscles were compared across perturbation directions to determine if individuals with LBP responded using a trunk stiffening strategy. Individuals with LBP demonstrated reduced peak trunk torques, and enhanced activation of the trunk and ankle muscle responses following perturbations. These results suggest that individuals with LBP use a strategy of trunk stiffening achieved through co-activation of trunk musculature, aided by enhanced distal responses, to respond to unexpected support surface perturbations. Notably, these neuromotor alterations persisted between active pain periods and could represent either movement patterns that have developed in response to pain or could reflect underlying impairments that may contribute to recurrent episodes of LBP.     

Is the trunk movement more perturbed after an asymmetric than after a symmetric perturbation during lifting?

Low back injury is associated with sudden movements and loading. Trunk motion after sudden loading depends on the stability of the spine prior to loading and on the trunk muscle activity in response to the loading. Both factors are not axis-symmetric. Therefore, it was hypothesized that the effects on trunk dynamics would be larger after an asymmetric than after a symmetric perturbation. Ten subjects lifted a crate in which, prior to lifting, a mass was displaced to the front or to the side without the subjects being aware of this. Crate and subject movements, crate reaction forces and muscle activity were recorded. From this, the stability prior to the perturbation was estimated, and the trunk angular kinematics and moments at the lumbo-sacral joint were calculated. Both perturbations only minimally affected the trunk kinematics, although the stability of the spine prior to the lifting movement was higher in the sagittal plane than in the frontal plane. In both conditions the stability appeared to be sufficient to absorb the applied perturbation.     

Methods for assessment of trunk stabilization,a systematic review

Trunk stabilization is achieved differently in patients with low back pain compared to healthy controls. Many methods exist to assess trunk stabilization but not all measure the contributions of intrinsic stiffness and reflexes simultaneously. This may pose a threat to the quality/validity of the study and might lead to misinterpretation of the results. The aim of this study was to provide a critical review of previously published methods for studying trunk stabilization in relation to low back pain (LBP). We primarily aimed to assess their construct validity to which end we defined a theoretical framework operationalized in a set of methodological criteria which would allow to identify the contributions of intrinsic stiffness and reflexes simultaneously. In addition, the clinimetric properties of the methods were evaluated. A total of 133 articles were included from which four main categories of methods were defined; upper limb (un)loading, moving platform, unloading and loading. Fifty of the 133 selected articles complied with all the criteria of the theoretical framework, but only four articles provided information about reliability and/or measurement error of methods to assess trunk stabilization with test–retest reliability ranging from poor (ICC 0) to moderate (ICC 0.72). When aiming to assess trunk stabilization with system identification, we propose a perturbation method where the trunk is studied in isolation, the perturbation is unpredictable, force controlled, directly applied to the upper body, completely known and results in small fluctuations around the working point.     

Core stability exercises in individuals with and without chronic nonspecific low back pain

Marshall, PWM, Desai, I, and Robbins, DW. Core stability exercises in individuals with and without chronic nonspecific low back pain. J Strength Cond Res 25(12): 3404-3411, 2011-The aim of this study was to measure trunk muscle activity during several commonly used exercises in individuals with and without low back pain (LBP). Abdominal bracing was investigated as an exercise modification that may increase the acute training stimulus. After an initial familiarization session, 10 patients with LBP and 10 matched controls performed 5 different exercises (quadruped, side bridge, modified push-up, squat, shoulder flexion) with and without abdominal bracing. Trunk muscle activity and lumbar range of motion (LROM) were measured during all exercises. Muscle activity was measured bilaterally during each exercise from rectus abdominis (RA), external obliques (EO), and lumbar erector spinae (ES) with pairs of surface electrodes. Recorded signals were normalized to a percentage of maximal voluntary contractions performed for each muscle. The ES activity was lower for the LBP group during the quadruped (p < 0.05) and higher for RA and EO during the side bridge (p < 0.001), compared to for the healthy controls. Higher muscle activity was observed across exercises in an inconsistent pattern when abdominal bracing was used during exercise. The LROM was no different between groups for any exercise. The lack of worsening of symptoms in the LBP group and similar LROM observed between groups suggest that all exercises investigated in this study are of use in rehabilitating LBP patients. The widespread use of abdominal bracing in clinical practice, whether it be for patients with LBP or healthy individuals, may not be justified unless symptoms of spinal instability are identified.     

The intrinsic stiffness of the in vivo lumbar spine in response to quick releases: Implications for reflexive requirements

Torso muscles contribute both intrinsic and reflexive stiffness to the spine; recent modeling studies indicate that intrinsic stiffness alone is sometimes insufficient to maintain stability in dynamic situations. The purpose of this study was to experimentally test this idea by limiting muscular reflexive responses to sudden trunk perturbations. Nine healthy males lay on a near-frictionless apparatus and were subjected to quick trunk releases from the neutral position into flexion or right-side lateral bend. Different magnitudes of moment release were accomplished by having participants contract their musculature to create a range of moment levels. EMG was recorded from 12 torso muscles and three-dimensional lumbar spine rotations were monitored. A second-order linear model of the trunk was employed to estimate trunk stiffness and damping during each quick release. Participants displayed very limited reflex responses to the quick load release paradigms, and consequently underwent substantial trunk displacements (>50% flexion range of motion and >70% lateral bend range of motion in the maximum moment trials). Trunk stiffness increased significantly with significant increases in muscle activation, but was still unable to prevent the largest trunk displacements in the absence of reflexes. Thus, it was concluded that the intrinsic stiffness of the trunk was insufficient to adequately prevent the spine from undergoing potentially harmful rotational displacements. Voluntary muscular responses were more apparent than reflexive responses, but occurred too late and of too low magnitude to sufficiently make up for the limited reflexes.     

Effects of reflex delays on postural control during unstable seated balance

Patients with low-back pain (LBP) exhibit longer trunk muscle reflex latencies and poorer postural control than healthy individuals. We hypothesized that balance during a simulated postural control task would become impaired when the delays exhibited by LBP patients were incorporated into neuromuscular control. The task chosen for this investigation was seated balancing, which emphasizes trunk muscles’ contribution in postural control. This task was modeled in Simulink? as a fourth order linearized dynamic system with feedback delays. Optimization (minimizing error between experimental and model data) of state variables was used to determine neuromuscular control parameters. Experimental data were obtained from 7 subjects during 5 perturbation trials while balancing on the seat with eyes closed. Model accuracy, reflecting the ability of the model to capture the dynamics of seated balance, was correlated with seated balance performance (r=0.91, p<0.001). To minimize the risk of erroneous findings from inaccurate modeling, only the best five balancers’ data were used for hypothesis testing. In these five subjects, feedback delays in modeled neuromuscular control were increased to determine their effect on task stability, trunk displacement and trunk moment. Simulations showed that longer delays found in LBP, in general, did not produce unstable balancing, but did result in increased trunk displacement (p<0.001) and trunk moment (p=0.001). This impairment in neuromuscular control in chronic LBP patients could possibly exacerbate their condition by increasing tissue strain (more spinal displacement) and stress (more spinal loading).     

Mechanical coupling between transverse plane pelvis and thorax rotations during gait is higher in people with low back pain

This study investigated whether people with low back pain (LBP) reduce variability of movement between the pelvis and thorax (trunk) in the transverse plane during gait at different speeds compared to healthy controls. Thirteen people with chronic LBP and twelve healthy controls walked on a treadmill at speeds from 0.5 to 1.72 m/s, with increments of 0.11 m/s. Step-to-step variability of the trunk, pelvis, and thorax rotations were calculated. Step-to-step deviations of pelvis and thorax rotations from the average pattern (residual rotations) were correlated to each other, and the linear regression coefficients between these deviations calculated. Spectral analysis was used to determine the frequencies of the residual rotations, to infer the relation of reduced trunk variability to trunk stiffness and/or damping. Variability of trunk motion (thorax relative to pelvis) was lower (P=0.02), covariance between the residual rotations of pelvis and thorax motions was higher (P=0.03), and the linear regression coefficients were closer to 1 (P=0.05) in the LBP group. Most power of segmental residual rotations was below stride frequency (~1 Hz). In this frequency range, trunk residual rotations had less power than pelvis or thorax residual rotations. These data show that people with LBP had lower variability of trunk rotations, as a result of the coupling of deviations of residual rotations in one segment to deviations of a similar shape (correlation) and amplitude (regression coefficient) in the other segment. These results support the argument that people with LBP adopt a protective movement strategy, possibly by increased trunk stiffness.     

Anticipation of direction and time of perturbation modulates the onset latency of trunk muscle responses during sitting perturbations

Trunk muscles are responsible for maintaining trunk stability during sitting. However, the effects of anticipation of perturbation on trunk muscle responses are not well understood. The objectives of this study were to identify the responses of trunk muscles to sudden support surface translations and quantify the effects of anticipation of direction and time of perturbation on the trunk neuromuscular responses. Twelve able-bodied individuals participated in the study. Participants were seated on a kneeling chair and support surface translations were applied in the forward and backward directions with and without direction and time of perturbation cues. The trunk started moving on average approximately 40 ms after the perturbation. During unanticipated perturbations, average latencies of the trunk muscle contractions were in the range between 103.4 and 117.4 ms. When participants anticipated the perturbations, trunk muscle latencies were reduced by 16.8 ± 10.0 ms and the time it took the trunk to reach maximum velocity was also reduced, suggesting a biomechanical advantage caused by faster muscle responses. These results suggested that trunk muscles have medium latency responses and use reflexive mechanisms. Moreover, anticipation of perturbation decreased trunk muscles latencies, suggesting that the central nervous system modulated readiness of the trunk based on anticipatory information.     

Effects of trunk muscle fatigue and load timing on spinal responses during sudden hand loading

The purpose of this study was to investigate the responses of the spine during sudden loading in the presence of back and abdominal muscle fatigue, with a primary focus on the implications for spinal stability. Fifteen females were studied and each received sudden loads to the hands, at both known and unknown times. Participants received these loading trials (a) while rested, (b) with back muscle fatigue, and (c) with a combination of back and abdominal muscle fatigue. Measures were taken on the EMG activity of two trunk extensor and two abdominal muscles, and on the trunk angle and centre of pressure. A 3 × 2 Repeated Measures ANOVA was also performed. There were no preparations made prior to the perturbation even when it could be anticipated. However, the peak responses that followed were greater in the unexpected versus the expected condition. In addition, trunk muscle fatigue led to an increase in the baseline activity of the trunk muscles but no additional increase in activity just prior to loading. There was increased activation of both (opposing) muscle groups when only one muscle group was fatigued. Because the peak responses following the perturbation were enhanced in the unknown timing condition, preparations must have taken place prior to the anticipated perturbations, perhaps in other segments of the body that were not measured. Also, the load impact may not have been great enough to elicit large preparations. The heightened baseline activity with fatigue suggests that there may have been increased spinal stiffness whenever the spine was fatigued, and not just immediately prior to an impending perturbation. The increased activation of opposing muscle groups is evidence of increased cocontraction in response to fatigue, possibly to maintain stability with decreasing coordination.     

Trunk stiffness and dynamics during active extension exertions

Spinal stability is related to the recruitment and control of active muscle stiffness. Stochastic system identification techniques were used to calculate the effective stiffness and dynamics of the trunk during active trunk extension exertions. Twenty-one healthy adult subjects (10 males, 11 females) wore a harness with a cable attached to a servomotor such that isotonic flexion preloads of 100, 135, and 170 N were applied at the T10 level of the trunk. A pseudorandom stochastic force sequence (bandwidth 0-10 Hz, amplitude +/-30 N) was superimposed on the preload causing small amplitude trunk movements. Nonparametric impulse response functions of trunk dynamics were computed and revealed that the system exhibited underdamped second-order behavior. Second-order trunk dynamics were determined by calculating the best least-squares fit to the IRF. The quality of the model was quantified by comparing estimated and observed displacement variance accounted for (VAF), and quality of the second-order fits was calculated as a percentage and referred to as fit accuracy. Mean VAF and fit accuracy were 87.8 +/- 4.0% and 96.0 +/- 4.3%, respectively, indicating that the model accurately represented active trunk kinematic response. The accuracy of the kinematic representation was not influenced by preload or gender. Mean effective stiffness was 2.78 +/- 0.96 N/mm and increased significantly with preload (p < 0.001), but did not vary with gender (p = 0.425). Mean effective damping was 314 +/- 72 Ns/m and effective trunk mass was 37.0 +/- 9.3 kg. We conclude that stochastic system identification techniques should be used to calculate effective trunk stiffness and dynamics.     

Muscle reflex classification of low-back pain.

It has been well documented that low-back pain (LBP) patients have longer muscle response latencies to perturbation than healthy controls. These muscle responses appear to be reflexive and not voluntary in nature, and as a result, might be useful for objectively classifying LBP. The goal of the study was to develop an objective and accurate method for classifying LBP using a sudden load-release protocol. Subjects were divided into two groups: learning group (20 patients and 20 controls), and holdout group (15 patients and 12 controls). Subjects exerted isometric trunk force against a cable in four different directions. Following cable release, the trunk was suddenly displaced eliciting a muscle reflex response. Reflex latencies for muscles switching-on and shutting-off were determined using electromyogram signals from 8 trunk muscles. Independent t tests were performed on the learning group to determine which reflex parameters were to be entered into logistic regression analysis to produce a classification model. The holdout group was used to validate this classification model. The three-parameter model was able to correctly classify 83% of the learning group, and 81% of the holdout group. Using reflex parameters appears to be an accurate and objective method for classifying LBP.     

Effects of trunk rotation on scapular kinematics and muscle activity during humeral elevation

Trunk rotation often accompanies humeral elevation, during daily activities as well as sports activities. Earlier studies have demonstrated that changes in spinal posture contribute to scapular motion during humeral elevation. However, the effect of trunk rotation on scapular kinematics during humeral elevation has received scant attention. This study aimed to clarify how trunk rotation affects scapular kinematics and muscle activities during humeral elevation. Electromagnetic motion capture and electromyography were used to assess scapular and clavicular motion and muscle activity in the right and left sides of 12 healthy young men. The subjects were seated and instructed to elevate both arms with the trunk in neutral, ipsilaterally rotated, or contralaterally rotated position. Ipsilaterally rotated trunk position decreased the internal rotation (by 5°, relative to neutral trunk position) and increased the upward rotation (by 4°, relative to neutral trunk position) of the scapula. Trunk position did not affect clavicular motion during humeral movement. Electromyography showed that contralaterally rotated trunk position increased the activity of the upper trapezius and serratus anterior muscles and decreased the activity of the lower trapezius. Therapists should consider the importance of trunk rotation, which may be the key to developing more efficient rehabilitation programs.     

Model and in vivo studies on human trunk load partitioning and stability in isometric forward flexions

To resolve the trunk redundancy to determine muscle forces, spinal loads, and stability margin in isometric forward flexion tasks, combined in vivo-numerical model studies was undertaken. It was hypothesized that the passive resistance of both the ligamentous spine and the trunk musculature plays a crucial role in equilibrium and stability of the system. Fifteen healthy males performed free isometric trunk flexions of approximately 40 degrees and approximately 65 degrees +/- loads in hands while kinematics by skin markers and EMG activity of trunk muscles by surface electrodes were measured. A novel kinematics-based approach along with a nonlinear finite element model were iteratively used to calculate muscle forces and internal loads under prescribed measured postures and loads considered in vivo. Stability margin was investigated using nonlinear, linear buckling, and perturbation analyses under various postures, loads and alterations in ligamentous stiffness. Flexion postures significantly increased activity in extensor muscles when compared with standing postures while no significant change was detected in between flexed postures. Compression at the L5-S1 substantially increased from 570 and 771 N in upright posture, respectively, for +/-180 N, to 1912 and 3308 N at approximately 40 degrees flexion, and furthermore to 2332 and 3850 N at approximately 65 degrees flexion. Passive ligamentous/muscle components resisted up to 77% of the net moment. In flexion postures, the spinal stability substantially improved due both to greater passive stiffness and extensor muscle activities so that, under 180 N, no muscle stiffness was required to maintain stability. The co-activity of abdominal muscles and the muscle stiffness were of lesser concern to maintain stability in forward flexion tasks as compared with upright tasks. An injury to the passive system, on one hand, required a substantial compensatory increase in active muscle forces which further increased passive loads and, hence, the risk of injury and fatigue. On the other hand, it deteriorated the system stability which in turn could require greater additional muscle activation. This chain of events would place the entire trunk active-passive system at higher risks of injury, fatigue and instability.     

NACOB presentation CSB New Investigator Award. Balance recovery from medio-lateral perturbations of the upper body during standing. North American Congress on Biomechanics.

Postural control strategies have in the past been predominantly characterized by kinematics, surface forces, and EMG responses (e.g. Horak and Nashner, 1986, Journal of Neurophysiology 55(6), 1369-1381). The goal of this study was to provide unique and novel insights into the underlying motor mechanisms used in postural control by determining the joint moments during balance recovery from medio-lateral (M/L) perturbations. Ten adult males received medio-lateral (M/L) pushes to the trunk or pelvis. The inverted pendulum model of balance control (Winter et al., 1998, Journal of Neurophysiology 80, 1211-1221) was validated even though the body did not behave as a single pendulum, indicating that the centre of pressure (COP) is the variable used to control the centre of mass (COM). The perturbation magnitude was random, and the central nervous system (CNS) responded with an estimate of the largest anticipated perturbation. The observed joint moments served to move the COP in the appropriate direction and to control the lateral collapse of the trunk. The individual joints involved in controlling the COP contributed differing amounts to the total recovery response: the hip and spinal moments provided the majority of the recovery (approximately 85%), while the ankles contributed a small, but significant amount (15%). The differing contributions are based on the anatomical constraints and the functional requirements of the balance task. The onset of the joint moment was synchronous with the joint angle change, and occurred too early (56-116 ms) to be result of active muscle contraction. Therefore, the first line of defense was provided by muscle stiffness, not reflex-activated muscle activity.