Automatic postural responses are scaled from the association between online feedback and feedforward control.

Generation of automatic postural responses (APRs) scaled to magnitude of unanticipated postural perturbations is required to recover upright body stability. In the current experiment, we aimed to evaluate the effect of previous postural perturbations on APR scaling under conditions in which the current perturbation is equal to or different from the previous perturbation load inducing unanticipated forward body sway. We hypothesized that the APR is scaled from the association of the current perturbation magnitude and postural responses to preceding perturbations. Evaluation was made by comparing postural responses in the contexts of progressive increasing versus decreasing magnitudes of perturbation loads. Perturbation was applied by unanticipatedly releasing a cable pulling the body backwards, with loads corresponding to 6%, 8% and 10% of body mass. We found that the increasing as compared to the decreasing load sequence led to lower values of (a) displacement and (b) velocity of center of pressure, and of activation rate of the muscle gastrocnemius medialis across loads. Muscular activation onset latency decreased as a function increasing loads, but no significant effects of load sequence were found. These results lead to the conclusion that APRs to unanticipated perturbations are scaled from the association of somatosensory feedback signaling balance instability with feedforward control from postural responses to previous perturbations.

Evaluation of balance recovery stability from unpredictable perturbations through the compensatory arm and leg movements (CALM) scale.

Following unpredictable large-magnitude stance perturbations diverse patterns of arm and leg movements are performed to recover balance stability. Stability of these compensatory movements could be properly estimated through qualitative evaluation. In the present study, we present a scale for evaluation of compensatory arm and leg movements (CALM) in response to unpredictable displacements of the support base in the mediolateral direction. We tested the CALM scale for intra- and inter-rater reliability, correlation with kinematics of arm and leg movement amplitudes, and sensitivity to mode (rotation, translation and combined) and magnitude (velocity) of support base displacements, and also to perturbation-based balance training. Results showed significant intra- and inter-rater coefficients of agreement, ranging from moderate (0.46-0.53) for inter-rater reliability in the arm and global scores, to very high (0.87-0.99) for inter-rater leg scores and all intra-rater scores. Analysis showed significant correlation values between scale scores and the respective movement amplitudes both for arm and leg movements. Assessment of sensitivity revealed that the scale discriminated the responses between perturbation modes, platform velocities, in addition to higher balance recovery stability as a result of perturbation-based balance training. As a conclusion, the CALM scale was shown to provide adequate integrative evaluation of compensatory arm and leg movements for balance recovery stability after challenging stance perturbations, with potential application in fall risk prediction.