Should the Minimal Intervention Principle Be Considered When Investigating Dual-Tasking Effects on Postural Control?
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Ethics
2.2. Participants
2.3. Measurement Procedures
2.4. Instrumentation
2.5. Data Processing
2.6. Processing of COP Data
2.7. Processing of Kinematic Data: Calculation of Principal Movements (PMs)
2.8. Dependent PM-Based Variables
2.9. Statistics
3. Results
3.1. Center of Pressure Motion
3.2. Amplitude of Postural Movement Components
3.3. Control of Postural Movement Components
4. Discussion
4.1. Main Results
4.2. Limitations
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Lajoie, Y.; Richer, N.; Jehu, D.A.; Tran, Y. Continuous Cognitive Tasks Improve Postural Control Compared to Discrete Cognitive Tasks. J. Mot. Behav. 2016, 48, 264–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Woollacott, M.; Shumway-Cook, A. Attention and the control of posture and gait: A review of an emerging area of research. Gait Posture 2002, 16, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wulf, G.; McNevin, N.; Shea, C.H. The automaticity of complex motor skill learning as a function of attentional focus. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 2001, 54, 1143–1154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Polskaia, N.; Richer, N.; Dionne, E.; Lajoie, Y. Continuous cognitive task promotes greater postural stability than an internal or external focus of attention. Gait Posture 2015, 41, 454–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Prado, J.M.; Stoffregen, T.A.; Duarte, M. Postural Sway during Dual Tasks in Young and Elderly Adults. Gerontology 2007, 53, 274–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Riley, M.A.; Baker, A.A.; Schmit, J.M.; Weaver, E. Effects of visual and auditory short-term memory tasks on the spatiotemporal dynamics and variability of postural sway. J. Mot. Behav. 2005, 37, 311–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stins, J.F.; Roerdink, M.; Beek, P.J. To freeze or not to freeze? Affective and cognitive perturbations have markedly different effects on postural control. Hum. Mov. Sci. 2011, 30, 190–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Swan, L.; Otani, H.; Loubert, P.V.; Sheffert, S.M.; Dunbar, G.L. Improving balance by performing a secondary cognitive task. Br. J. Psychol. 2004, 95, 31–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Olivier, I.; Palluel, E.; Nougier, V. Effects of attentional focus on postural sway in children and adults. Exp. Brain Res. 2008, 185, 341–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Huxhold, O.; Li, S.-C.; Schmiedek, F.; Lindenberger, U. Dual-tasking postural control: Aging and the effects of cognitive demand in conjunction with focus of attention. Brain Res. Bull. 2006, 69, 294–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jamet, M.; Deviterne, D.; Gauchard, G.C.; Vançon, G.; Perrin, P.P. Higher visual dependency increases balance control perturbation during cognitive task fulfilment in elderly people. Neurosci. Lett. 2004, 359, 61–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jamet, M.; Deviterne, D.; Gauchard, G.C.; Vançon, G.; Perrin, P.P. Age-related part taken by attentional cognitive processes in standing postural control in a dual-task context. Gait Posture 2007, 25, 179–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Melzer, I.; Benjuya, N.; Kaplanski, J. Age-related changes of postural control: Effect of cognitive tasks. Gerontology 2001, 47, 189–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pellecchia, G.L. Postural sway increases with attentional demands of concurrent cognitive task. Gait Posture 2003, 18, 29–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Woollacott, M.; Vander Velde, T. Non-visual spatial tasks reveal increased interactions with stance postural control. Brain Res. 2008, 1208, 95–102. [Google Scholar]
- Stins, J.F.; Michielsen, M.E.; Roerdink, M.; Beek, P.J. Sway regularity reflects attentional involvement in postural control: Effects of expertise, vision and cognition. Gait Posture 2009, 30, 106–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hansson, E.E.; Beckman, A.; Håkansson, A. Effect of vision, proprioception, and the position of the vestibular organ on postural sway. Acta Otolaryngol. 2010, 130, 1358–1363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cote, K.P.; Brunet, M.E.; Gansneder, B.M.; Shultz, S.J. Effects of Pronated and Supinated Foot Postures on Static and Dynamic Postural Stability. J. Athl. Train. 2005, 40, 41–46. [Google Scholar]
- Peterson, M.L.; Christou, E.; Rosengren, K.S. Children achieve adult-like sensory integration during stance at 12-years-old. Gait Posture 2006, 23, 455–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rinaldi, N.M.; Polastri, P.F.; Barela, J.A. Age-related changes in postural control sensory reweighting. Neurosci. Lett. 2009, 467, 225–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hirabayashi, S.; Iwasaki, Y. Developmental perspective of sensory organization on postural control. Brain Dev. 1995, 17, 111–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Steindl, R.; Kunz, K.; Schrott-Fischer, A.; Scholtz, A.W. Effect of age and sex on maturation of sensory systems and balance control. Dev. Med. Child Neurol. 2006, 48, 477–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Todorov, E.; Jordan, M.I. Optimal feedback control as a theory of motor coordination. Nat. Neurosci. 2002, 5, 1226–1235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Todorov, E. Optimality principles in sensorimotor control. Nat. Neurosci. 2004, 7, 907–915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Scott, S.H. Optimal feedback control and the neural basis of volitional motor control. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 2004, 5, 532–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bernstein, N. The Co-Ordination and Regulation of Movements; Pergamon-Press Ltd.: Headington Hill Hall, UK, 1967. [Google Scholar]
- Diedrichsen, J.; Shadmehr, R.; Ivry, R.B. The coordination of movement: Optimal feedback control and beyond. Trends Cogn. Sci. 2010, 14, 31–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Daffertshofer, A.; Lamoth, C.J.C.; Meijer, O.G.; Beek, P.J. PCA in studying coordination and variability: A tutorial. Clin. Biomech. 2004, 19, 415–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Federolf, P.A. A novel approach to study human posture control: “Principal movements” obtained from a principal component analysis of kinematic marker data. J. Biomech. 2016, 49, 364–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Troje, N.F. Decomposing biological motion: A framework for analysis and synthesis of human gait patterns. J. Vis. 2002, 2, 371–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wachholz, F.; Kockum, T.; Haid, T.; Federolf, P. Changed Temporal Structure of Neuromuscular Control, Rather Than Changed Intersegment Coordination, Explains Altered Stabilographic Regularity after a Moderate Perturbation of the Postural Control System. Entropy 2019, 21, 614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Federolf, P.; Roos, L.; Nigg, B.M. Analysis of the multi-segmental postural movement strategies utilized in bipedal, tandem and one-leg stance as quantified by a principal component decomposition of marker coordinates. J. Biomech. 2013, 46, 2626–2633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Winter, D. Human balance and posture control during standing and walking. Gait Posture 1995, 3, 193–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Horak, F.B.; Nashner, L.M. Central programming of postural movements: Adaptation to altered support-surface configurations. J. Neurophysiol. 1986, 55, 1369–1381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Runge, C.F.; Shupert, C.L.; Horak, F.B.; Zajac, F.E. Ankle and hip postural strategies defined by joint torques. Gait Posture 1999, 10, 161–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Massion, J. Postural control system. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 1994, 4, 877–887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duarte, M.; Freitas, S.M.S.F. Revision of posturography based on force plate for balance evaluation. Braz. J. Phys. Ther. 2010, 14, 183–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- De Oliveira, J.M. Statokinesigram normalization method. Behav. Res. 2017, 49, 310–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Haid, T.H.; Zago, M.; Promsri, A.; Doix, A.-C.M.; Federolf, P.A. PManalyzer: A Software Facilitating the Study of Sensorimotor Control of Whole-Body Movements. Front. Neuroinform. 2019, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Federolf, P.A. A Novel Approach to Solve the “Missing Marker Problem” in Marker-Based Motion Analysis That Exploits the Segment Coordination Patterns in Multi-Limb Motion Data. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e78689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gløersen, Ø.; Federolf, P. Predicting Missing Marker Trajectories in Human Motion Data Using Marker Intercorrelations. PLoS ONE 2016, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gløersen, Ø.; Myklebust, H.; Hallén, J.; Federolf, P. Technique analysis in elite athletes using principal component analysis. J. Sports Sci. 2017, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bockemühl, T.; Troje, N.F.; Dürr, V. Inter-joint coupling and joint angle synergies of human catching movements. Hum. Mov. Sci. 2010, 29, 73–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Verrel, J.; Lövdén, M.; Schellenbach, M.; Schaefer, S.; Lindenberger, U. Interacting effects of cognitive load and adult age on the regularity of whole-body motion during treadmill walking. Psychol. Aging 2009, 24, 75–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Haid, T.H.; Doix, A.-C.M.; Nigg, B.M.; Federolf, P.A. Age Effects in Postural Control Analyzed via a Principal Component Analysis of Kinematic Data and Interpreted in Relation to Predictions of the Optimal Feedback Control Theory. Front. Aging Neurosci. 2018, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Promsri, A.; Haid, T.; Federolf, P. How does lower limb dominance influence postural control movements during single leg stance? Hum. Mov. Sci. 2018, 58, 165–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Promsri, A.; Longo, A.; Haid, T.; Doix, A.-C.M.; Federolf, P. Leg Dominance as a Risk Factor for Lower-Limb Injuries in Downhill Skiers—A Pilot Study into Possible Mechanisms. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 3399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Holm, S. A Simple Sequentially Rejective Multiple Test Procedure. Scand. J. Stat. 1979, 6, 65–70. [Google Scholar]
- Rival, C.; Ceyte, H.; Olivier, I. Developmental changes of static standing balance in children. Neurosci. Lett. 2005, 376, 133–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Participants | Age (years) | Body Height (cm) | Body Weight (kg) | BMI |
---|---|---|---|---|
All (n = 38) | 18.3 ± 7.2 | 171.7 ± 14.3 | 63.8 ± 16.5 | 21.1 ± 2.8 |
Adolescents (n = 23) | 12.7 ± 1.3 | 163.6 ± 12.1 | 54.0 ± 13.1 | 19.8 ± 2.8 |
Female (n = 8) | 11.5 ± 1.3 | 152.7 ± 9.4 | 41.9 ± 9.9 | 17.7 ± 2.4 |
Male (n = 15) | 13.3 ± 0.8 | 169.5 ± 9.0 | 60.3 ± 10.3 | 20.9 ± 2.4 |
Adults Male (n = 15) | 26.9 ± 2.3 | 183.9 ± 7.3 | 78.9 ± 7.3 | 23.3 ± 1.1 |
PMk | EVk (%) | Qualitative Description of PMk | Statistics | p-Value | Rank | Holm-Correction of Alpha-Level |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
PM1 | 63.75 | Ankle sway anterior-posterior | F | 0.000010 | 2 | 0.0056 |
PM2 | 14.77 | Hip sway medio-lateral | X2 | 0.035362 | 9 | 0.0250 |
PM3 | 7.29 | Hip flexion anterior-posterior | X2 | 0.002479 | 7 | 0.0125 |
PM4 | 2.67 | Frontal plane trunk rotation | X2 | 0.000120 | 3 | 0.0063 |
PM5 | 2.40 | Breathing | X2 | 0.000683 | 6 | 0.0100 |
PM6 | 2.09 | Breathing and head movement | X2 | 0.030197 | 8 | 0.0167 |
PM7 | 1.07 | Knee flexion anterior-posterior | X2 | 0.056789 | 10 | 0.0500 |
PM8 | 0.77 | Hip tilting anterior-posterior | X2 | 0.000294 | 5 | 0.0083 |
PM9 | 0.69 | Bringing shoulders back | X2 | 0.000156 | 4 | 0.0071 |
PM10 | 0.58 | Shifting legs anterior-posterior | X2 | 0.000004 | 1 | 0.0050 |
Overall Trial Effect on Variance | Post-Hoc | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
PMk | F|X2 | DoF | p-Value | EO–DT | r | EC–DT | r |
PM1 | 13.623 | 2, 72 | 0.001 *** | 0.001 *** | - | 0.016 * | - |
PM3 | 12.0 | 2 | 0.002 * | 0.002 * | 0.128 | 0.117 | 0.077 |
PM4 | 18.053 | 2 | 0.001 *** | 0.001 *** | 0.149 | 0.004 * | 0.120 |
PM5 | 14.579 | 2 | 0.001 * | 0.001 ** | 0.132 | 0.009 * | 0.111 |
PM8 | 16.262 | 2 | 0.001 *** | 0.001 *** | 0.141 | 0.002 * | 0.115 |
PM9 | 17.526 | 2 | 0.001 *** | 0.001 *** | 0.141 | 0.002 * | 0.128 |
PM10 | 24.789 | 2 | 0.001 *** | 0.001 *** | 0.166 | 0.001 *** | 0.153 |
Overall Trial Effect on NoZC | Post-Hoc | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
PMk | F | DoF | p-Value | η2 | EO–EC | EO–DT | EC–DT |
PM1 | 10.813 | 1.707, 61.437 | 0.001 *** | 0.231 | 0.001 ** | 0.490 | 0.001 * |
PM2 | 1.079 | 2, 72 | 0.345 | 0.029 | |||
PM3 | 0.501 | 2, 72 | 0.608 | 0.014 | |||
PM4 | 4.267 | 2, 72 | 0.018 * | 0.106 | |||
PM5 | 8.360 | 1.695, 61.016 | 0.001 * | 0.188 | 0.342 | 0.001 ** | 0.083 |
PM6 | 0.797 | 1.633, 58.779 | 0.433 | 0.022 | |||
PM7 | 9.444 | 2, 72 | 0.001 *** | 0.208 | 1.000 | 0.001 *** | 0.010 * |
PM8 | 11.176 | 1.711, 61,607 | 0.001 *** | 0.237 | 1.000 | 0.005 * | 0.001 * |
PM9 | 19.233 | 1.349, 48.580 | 0.001 *** | 0.348 | 1.000 | 0.001 *** | 0.001 *** |
PM10 | 2.248 | 2, 72 | 0.113 | 0.059 |
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Wachholz, F.; Tiribello, F.; Promsri, A.; Federolf, P. Should the Minimal Intervention Principle Be Considered When Investigating Dual-Tasking Effects on Postural Control? Brain Sci. 2020, 10, 1. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/brainsci10010001
Wachholz F, Tiribello F, Promsri A, Federolf P. Should the Minimal Intervention Principle Be Considered When Investigating Dual-Tasking Effects on Postural Control? Brain Sciences. 2020; 10(1):1. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/brainsci10010001
Chicago/Turabian StyleWachholz, Felix, Federico Tiribello, Arunee Promsri, and Peter Federolf. 2020. "Should the Minimal Intervention Principle Be Considered When Investigating Dual-Tasking Effects on Postural Control?" Brain Sciences 10, no. 1: 1. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/brainsci10010001