Our daily movements exert forces upon the environment and also upon our own bodies. To control for these forces, movements performed while standing are usually preceded by anticipatory postural adjustments (APAs). This strategy is effective at compensating for an expected perturbation, as it reduces the need to compensate for the perturbation in a reactive manner. However, it can also be risky if one anticipates the incorrect perturbation, which could result in movements outside stability limits and a loss of balance. Here, we examine whether the margin for error defined by these stability limits affects the amount of anticipation. Specifically, will one rely more on anticipation when the margin for error is lower? Will the degree of anticipation scale with the margin for error? We took advantage of the asymmetric stability limits (and margins for error) present in the sagittal plane during upright stance and investigated the effect of perturbation direction on the magnitude of APAs. We also compared anticipatory postural control with the anticipatory control observed at the arm. Standing subjects made reaching movements to multiple targets while grasping the handle of a robot arm. They experienced forward or backward perturbing forces depending on the target direction. Subjects learned to anticipate the forces and generated APAs. Although subjects had the biomechanical capacity to adapt similarly in the forward and backward directions, APAs were reduced significantly in the backward direction, which had smaller stability limits and a smaller margin for error. Interestingly, anticipatory control produced at the arm, where stability limits are not as relevant, was not affected by perturbation direction. These results suggest that stability limits modulate anticipatory control, and reduced stability limits lead to a reduction in anticipatory postural control.
The Effects of Kinesio Taping on Potential in Chronic Low Back Pain Patients Anticipatory Postural Control and Cerebral Cortex