The contribution of body weight distribution and center of pressure location in the control of mediolateral stance.

The study investigated the mediolateral control of upright stance in 16 healthy, young adults. The model analyzed the body weight distribution and center of pressure location mechanisms under three stance width conditions (feet close, under standard condition, and apart). Our first objective was to discuss some methodological requirements to investigate the contribution of both mechanisms by means of two platforms. It is proposed that both the amplitude contribution (in variability analyses) and active contribution (in cross-correlation analyses) need to be studied distinctively. These analyses may be concerned with the strength and the degree of active contributions, respectively. Based on this theoretical proposition, we expected and found that the amplitude contribution of both mechanisms was higher and lower in wide and narrow stances compared with that in the standard stance, respectively. Indeed, the closer the two reaction forces, the lower their mechanical contribution. As expected, the active contribution of both mechanisms was significantly lower and higher in wide and narrow stances, respectively. Indeed, the further the feet apart, the less active both mechanisms needed to be to control mediolateral stance. Overall, only the center of pressure location mechanism really changed its significant contribution to control mediolateral stance under the three conditions. The result is important because this mechanism is known to be secondary, weaker than the body weight distribution mechanism to control mediolateral stance. In practical terms, these findings may explain why the mediolateral variability of center of pressure displacement was significantly higher in narrow stance but not lower in wide stance.

Methodological requirement to analyze biomechanical postural control mechanisms with two platforms.

In 1996, Winter and colleagues proposed the existence of two postural control mechanisms in both the anteroposterior and mediolateral axes: a bodyweight (loading/unloading) distribution mechanism and a complementary center of pressure location mechanism. To measure the loading/unloading forces under each foot, the feet had to be placed side by side in the mediolateral axis and one foot ahead of the other in the anteroposterior axis. Our first objective was to reexamine the validity of anteroposterior data published with the feet side by side. In that foot condition, we expected no change in the anteroposterior loading/unloading forces (regardless of the task performed), and consequently no change in the complementary mechanism. Our second objective was to confirm our hypotheses with experimental data. Twelve healthy, young adults performed three types of body oscillation in the anteroposterior axis (at the hips, at the ankles and alternately at the ankles and hips) and a quiet stance condition with the feet side by side. As expected, the bodyweight mechanism did not vary significantly. Although the complementary mechanism was significantly higher in the ankle and alternating conditions, the change was very tiny (<0.3%). Thus, we propose methodological requirements to analyze both mechanisms.