J Physiol Society Membership
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Physiology in Press

First published online on January 10, 2008.
Copyright © 2008 by The Physiological Society
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (Rapid PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
586/5/1265    most recent
jphysiol.2007.146910v1
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Chew, J. Z.
Right arrow Articles by Fitzpatrick, R. C
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Chew, J. Z.
Right arrow Articles by Fitzpatrick, R. C

Received October 17, 2007
Revised November 23, 2007
Accepted after revision January 9, 2008

Postural control at the human wrist

John ZZ Chew1, Simon C Gandevia1, and Richard C Fitzpatrick2*

1 Prince of Wales Medical Research Institute
2 Prince of Wales Medical Research Institute and University of New South Wales

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: r.fitzpatrick{at}unsw.edu.au.

In our movements and posture, we always act against a physical load. A key property of any load is its elastic stiffness (K), which describes how the force required to hold it must change with position. Here we examine how load stiffness affects the ability to maintain a stable posture at the wrist. Loads having positive (like a spring) and negative stiffness (like an inverted pendulum) were created by varying the position of weights on multi-arm rigid pendulum. Subjects (N=9) held fifteen loads (K = ±0.04, ±0.01, 0 Nm.deg-1 at mean torques of 0.2, 0.4, 0.6 Nm) still for 60s. Residual wrist movement (sway) increased with mean torque and increased as stiffness became more negative. Large effects of load stiffness were seen at low frequencies (<1.5 Hz) but not at higher frequencies that reflect load resonance and reflex activity. Subjects accurately perceived their postural sway while holding the loads but measured psychophysical thresholds showed that load stiffness was not perceived. We conclude that load stiffness, independent of force levels, affects the ability to control a load and that the postural control process relies on perception and volitional tracking rather than more automatic reflex pathways. Despite an awareness of their postural errors, we see no evidence for adaptation of postural control processes to compensate for changes in load properties. This is unlike the adaptation of feedforward control processes that produce targeted volitional movements when load properties are altered. We propose that postural control and movement control are fundamentally different neural processes.


Key words: Postural control • Proprioception • Sensorimotor control




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
J. Physiol.Home page
R. C. Fitzpatrick
The cortex, interneurones and motoneurones in the control of movement
J. Physiol., March 1, 2008; 586(5): 1215 - 1216.
[Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
Copyright © 2008 The Physiological Society.