Time-to-Boundary Function to Study the Development of Upright Stance Control in Children

Margins of postural stability in Parkinson's disease: an application of control theory

Introduction: Postural instability is a restrictive feature in Parkinson's disease (PD), usually assessed by clinical or laboratory tests. However, the exact quantification of postural stability, using stability theorems that take into account human dynamics, is still lacking. We investigated the feasibility of control theory and the Nyquist stability criterion-gain margin (GM) and phase margin (PM)-in discriminating postural instability in PD, as well as the effects of a balance-training program. Methods: Center-of-pressure (COP) data of 40 PD patients before and after a 4-week balance-training program, and 20 healthy control subjects (HCs) (Study1) as well as COP data of 20 other PD patients at four time points during a 6-week balance-training program (Study2), collected in two earlier studies, were used. COP was recorded in four tasks, two on a rigid surface and two on foam, both with eyes open and eyes closed. A postural control model (an inverted pendulum with a Proportional-integral-derivative (PID) controller and time delay) was fitted to the COP data to subject-specifically identify the model parameters thereby calculating |GM| and PM for each subject in each task. Results: PD patients had a smaller margin of stability (|GM| and PM) compared with HCs. Particularly, patients, unlike HCs, showed a drastic drop in PM on foam. Clinical outcomes and margins of stability improved in patients after balance training. |GM| improved early in week 4, followed by a plateau during the rest of the training. In contrast, PM improved late (week 6) in a relatively continuous-progression form. Conclusion: Using fundamental stability theorems is a promising technique for the standardized quantification of postural stability in various tasks.

Characterization of trial duration in traditional and emerging postural control measures

Researchers may select from varied technological and practical options when evaluating balance. Methodological choices inform the quantitative outcomes observed and allow practitioners to diagnose balance abnormalities. Past investigations have differed widely on sampling duration, and these discrepancies hinder comparisons among studies and confidence in outcomes where trials were excessively short. This study aimed to identify necessary trial lengths for common and emerging center of pressure-based measures. We hypothesized that dependent variables would fluctuate over time but eventually reach a stable magnitude. Ninety-seven apparently healthy adults performed quiet standing for 180-seconds (s) with eyes (A) open and (B) closed on a force platform. Anterior-posterior and medial-lateral elements of the center of pressure were used to calculate velocity, time-to-boundary, and Hurst exponents using 15, 30, 90, 120, 150, and 180 s of data. Two-way repeated measures ANOVAs were used to differentiate postural measures over time and between vision conditions. Outcomes were considered stable when significant changes in the measure were no longer observed in the time factor. Dependent measures stabilized for velocity between 60 and 120 s, time-to-boundary between 120 and 150 s, and the Hurst exponent between 30 and 120 s. Velocity measures stabilized quicker with eyes open, whereas vision had no effect or the eyes closed condition was faster to stabilize in time-to-boundary and detrended fluctuation analysis measures. We conclude that 150 s of standing data is sufficient to capture a broad range of postural stability outcomes regardless of vision condition.