Is the room moving? Muscle responses following visual perturbations

D. C. Porras, J. V. Jacobs, R. Inzelberg, O. Keren, G. Zeilig, M. Plotnik
{"title":"Is the room moving? Muscle responses following visual perturbations","authors":"D. C. Porras, J. V. Jacobs, R. Inzelberg, O. Keren, G. Zeilig, M. Plotnik","doi":"10.1109/ICVR46560.2019.8994515","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Postural adjustments are essential for balance control and to reduce risk of falling. One emerging method to train reactive postural control consists in exposing individuals to safe and controlled destabilizing perturbations that intend to simulate changing conditions that can lead to falls. Studies using virtual reality suggest that visual perturbations engage mechanisms of motor adaptation, increase electrocortical activity and modulate balance performance. What is not yet clear is the impact of trunk and limb muscles activation on the postural adjustments responsible to maintain balance control. This paper aims to map the response of trunk and limb muscles to visual perturbations, and compare them to those of physical perturbations. Additionally, our study includes vertical perturbations (i.e. balance disturbances in the vertical plane) known to be a major cause of falling. Therefore, this paper also compares muscles responses to both horizontal and vertical perturbations. Fourteen healthy participants (ten males; age: 27±4; BMI: 23.8±2.6 kg/m2) stood on a moveable platform within a virtual reality system projecting visual scenes over a 360° dome-shaped screen such that the participant appeared to be standing in the middle of a room. Concomitantly, the electrical activity of tibialis anterior, gastrocnemius, rectus femoris, hamstring, rectus abdominis, paraspinal, external oblique and deltoid muscles was captured. Amid a larger protocol, this paper reports on randomly presented 1) visual perturbations; i.e. the virtual room moves during 0.35 seconds a distance corresponding to 14 cm in four directions (forward - FP, backward - BP, upward - UP, downward - DP), each repeated three times; and 2) physical perturbations (12cm displacement in one second) for the four directions and two sensory conditions: static camera (SC; virtual room remains static) and dynamic camera (DC; corresponding transitions in the visual scenery). We calculated three muscle activation parameters: onset latency, duration of activation, and magnitude. Separate 2-factor repeated-measures ANOVA were applied for each outcome measure across factors of perturbation direction (FP, BP, UP and DP) and condition (VIS, SC, DC). Forward visual perturbations led to longer onset latencies when compared to upward and downward visual perturbations (e.g. in the gastrocnemius: respectively, 443±56.6 ms vs. 326±39.6 ms and 334±51.1 ms, P<0.05). Duration of activation was longer following downward visual perturbations than after backward visual perturbations in the rectus femoris (respectively, 630±120 ms vs 335±81.2 ms, P<0.05). All lower limbs and the paraspinal muscles presented with a longer onset latency in response to visual perturbations in comparison to both types of physical perturbations (SC and DC) (P<0.05). The magnitude of activation following visual perturbations was smaller than both types of physical perturbations in all muscles (P<0.05). Duration of activation was also longer in the gastrocnemius following visual perturbations when compared to both SC and DC conditions of physical perturbations (P<0.05). Overall, magnitude of responses was often larger following horizontal perturbations in comparison to vertical perturbations. Our results suggest that visual perturbations alone activate limb and trunk muscles. Although perturbation direction seems to regulate the timing of response following visual perturbations in some limbs muscles, no differences were observed in the magnitude of activation within visual perturbations. Physical perturbations significantly increased EMG responses compared with visual perturbations. Overall, horizontal perturbations often led to faster and more intense responses than vertical perturbations. Our findings that different types of perturbations lead to more or less intense muscle responses and to different activation timing may have translational benefits for the optimization of rehabilitation strategies implementing destabilizing perturbations and oriented to persons at risk of falling.","PeriodicalId":179905,"journal":{"name":"2019 International Conference on Virtual Rehabilitation (ICVR)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2019 International Conference on Virtual Rehabilitation (ICVR)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/ICVR46560.2019.8994515","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Postural adjustments are essential for balance control and to reduce risk of falling. One emerging method to train reactive postural control consists in exposing individuals to safe and controlled destabilizing perturbations that intend to simulate changing conditions that can lead to falls. Studies using virtual reality suggest that visual perturbations engage mechanisms of motor adaptation, increase electrocortical activity and modulate balance performance. What is not yet clear is the impact of trunk and limb muscles activation on the postural adjustments responsible to maintain balance control. This paper aims to map the response of trunk and limb muscles to visual perturbations, and compare them to those of physical perturbations. Additionally, our study includes vertical perturbations (i.e. balance disturbances in the vertical plane) known to be a major cause of falling. Therefore, this paper also compares muscles responses to both horizontal and vertical perturbations. Fourteen healthy participants (ten males; age: 27±4; BMI: 23.8±2.6 kg/m2) stood on a moveable platform within a virtual reality system projecting visual scenes over a 360° dome-shaped screen such that the participant appeared to be standing in the middle of a room. Concomitantly, the electrical activity of tibialis anterior, gastrocnemius, rectus femoris, hamstring, rectus abdominis, paraspinal, external oblique and deltoid muscles was captured. Amid a larger protocol, this paper reports on randomly presented 1) visual perturbations; i.e. the virtual room moves during 0.35 seconds a distance corresponding to 14 cm in four directions (forward - FP, backward - BP, upward - UP, downward - DP), each repeated three times; and 2) physical perturbations (12cm displacement in one second) for the four directions and two sensory conditions: static camera (SC; virtual room remains static) and dynamic camera (DC; corresponding transitions in the visual scenery). We calculated three muscle activation parameters: onset latency, duration of activation, and magnitude. Separate 2-factor repeated-measures ANOVA were applied for each outcome measure across factors of perturbation direction (FP, BP, UP and DP) and condition (VIS, SC, DC). Forward visual perturbations led to longer onset latencies when compared to upward and downward visual perturbations (e.g. in the gastrocnemius: respectively, 443±56.6 ms vs. 326±39.6 ms and 334±51.1 ms, P<0.05). Duration of activation was longer following downward visual perturbations than after backward visual perturbations in the rectus femoris (respectively, 630±120 ms vs 335±81.2 ms, P<0.05). All lower limbs and the paraspinal muscles presented with a longer onset latency in response to visual perturbations in comparison to both types of physical perturbations (SC and DC) (P<0.05). The magnitude of activation following visual perturbations was smaller than both types of physical perturbations in all muscles (P<0.05). Duration of activation was also longer in the gastrocnemius following visual perturbations when compared to both SC and DC conditions of physical perturbations (P<0.05). Overall, magnitude of responses was often larger following horizontal perturbations in comparison to vertical perturbations. Our results suggest that visual perturbations alone activate limb and trunk muscles. Although perturbation direction seems to regulate the timing of response following visual perturbations in some limbs muscles, no differences were observed in the magnitude of activation within visual perturbations. Physical perturbations significantly increased EMG responses compared with visual perturbations. Overall, horizontal perturbations often led to faster and more intense responses than vertical perturbations. Our findings that different types of perturbations lead to more or less intense muscle responses and to different activation timing may have translational benefits for the optimization of rehabilitation strategies implementing destabilizing perturbations and oriented to persons at risk of falling.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
房间在动吗?视觉干扰后的肌肉反应
姿势调整对于平衡控制和减少跌倒的风险至关重要。一种训练反应性姿势控制的新方法是将个体暴露在安全和可控的不稳定扰动中,以模拟可能导致跌倒的变化条件。使用虚拟现实的研究表明,视觉扰动参与运动适应机制,增加电皮层活动和调节平衡性能。目前尚不清楚的是躯干和四肢肌肉的激活对保持平衡控制的姿势调整的影响。本文旨在绘制躯干和肢体肌肉对视觉扰动的反应,并将其与物理扰动的反应进行比较。此外,我们的研究还包括垂直扰动(即垂直平面上的平衡扰动),这是导致坠落的主要原因。因此,本文还比较了肌肉对水平和垂直扰动的反应。14名健康参与者(10名男性;年龄:27±4;BMI: 23.8±2.6 kg/m2)站在虚拟现实系统内的可移动平台上,该系统在360°圆顶状屏幕上投射视觉场景,使参与者看起来站在房间中央。同时,观察胫前肌、腓肠肌、股直肌、腘绳肌、腹直肌、棘旁肌、外斜肌和三角肌的电活动。在一个更大的协议中,本文报告了随机呈现的1)视觉扰动;即虚拟房间在0.35秒内沿四个方向(向前- FP,向后- BP,向上- UP,向下- DP)移动14厘米,每个方向重复三次;2)四个方向和两种感官条件下的物理扰动(每秒12cm位移):静态相机(SC;虚拟房间保持静态)和动态摄像头(DC;相应的视觉场景过渡)。我们计算了三个肌肉激活参数:开始潜伏期、激活持续时间和强度。对扰动方向(FP, BP, UP和DP)和条件(VIS, SC, DC)的每个结果测量进行单独的2因素重复测量方差分析。与向上和向下的视觉扰动相比,向前的视觉扰动导致更长的发作潜伏期(例如,腓肠肌:分别为443±56.6 ms对326±39.6 ms和334±51.1 ms, P<0.05)。向下视觉扰动对股直肌的激活时间比向后视觉扰动对股直肌的激活时间长(分别为630±120 ms和335±81.2 ms, P<0.05)。与两种类型的物理扰动(SC和DC)相比,所有下肢和棘旁肌肉在视觉扰动下表现出更长的潜伏期(P<0.05)。在所有肌肉中,视觉扰动后的激活幅度均小于两种物理扰动(P<0.05)。与SC和DC条件下的物理扰动相比,视觉扰动后腓肠肌的激活时间也更长(P<0.05)。总的来说,与垂直扰动相比,水平扰动后的响应幅度往往更大。我们的研究结果表明,视觉干扰单独激活肢体和躯干肌肉。尽管摄动方向似乎调节了一些肢体肌肉在视觉摄动后的反应时间,但在视觉摄动中没有观察到激活程度的差异。与视觉扰动相比,物理扰动显著增加了肌电反应。总的来说,水平扰动往往比垂直扰动导致更快和更强烈的反应。我们的研究发现,不同类型的扰动导致或多或少的强烈肌肉反应和不同的激活时间,可能对实施不稳定扰动的康复策略的优化和面向有跌倒风险的人具有转化益处。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Standardizing Visual Rehabilitation using Simple Virtual Tests Adaptive VR-based rehabilitation to prevent deterioration in adults with cerebral palsy Upper extremity intervention for stroke combining virtual reality, robotics and electrical stimulation Crossing iVRoad: A VR application for detecting unilateral visuospatial neglect in poststroke patients Influence of virtual environment complexity on motor learning in typically developing children and children with cerebral palsy
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1