• DOI:10.1007/s00221-003-1446-0
• Corpus ID: 32279602

Differential approach to strategies of segmental stabilisation in postural control

@article{Isableu2003DifferentialAT,
  title={Differential approach to strategies of segmental stabilisation in postural control},
  author={Brice Isableu and Theophile Ohlmann and Jacques Cr{\'e}mieux and Bernard Amblard},
  journal={Experimental Brain Research},
  year={2003},
  volume={150},
  pages={208-221}
}

• B. Isableu, T. Ohlmann, +1 author B. Amblard
• Published 3 April 2003
• Psychology, Medicine
• Experimental Brain Research

The present paper attempts to clarify the between-subjects variability exhibited in both segmental stabilisation strategies and their subordinated or associated sensory contribution. Previous data have emphasised close relationships between the interindividual variability in both the visual control of posture and the spatial visual perception. In this study, we focused on the possible relationships that might link perceptual visual field dependence–independence and the visual contribution to segmental stabilisation strategies. Visual field dependent (FD) and field independent (FI) subjects were selected on the basis of their extreme score in a static rod and frame test where an estimation of the subjective vertical was required. In the postural test, the subjects stood in the sharpened Romberg position in darkness or under normal or stroboscopic illumination, in front of either a vertical or a tilted frame. Strategies of segmental stabilisation of the head, shoulders and hip in the roll plane were analysed by means of their anchoring index (AI). Our hypothesis was that FD subjects might use mainly visual cues for calibrating not only their spatial perception but also their strategies of segmental stabilisation. In the case of visual cue disturbances, a greater visual dependency to the strategies of segmental stabilisation in FD subjects should be validated by observing more systematic "en bloc" functioning (i.e. negative AI) between two adjacent segments. The main results are the following:1.Strategies of segmental stabilisation differed between both groups and differences were amplified with the deprivation of either total vision and/or static visual cues.2.In the absence of total vision and/or static visual cues, FD subjects have shown an increased efficiency of the hip stabilisation in space strategy and an "en bloc" operation of the shoulder–hip unit (whole trunk). The last "en bloc" operation was extended to the whole head–trunk unit in darkness, associated with a hip stabilisation in space.3.The FI subjects have adopted neither a strategy of segmental stabilisation in space nor on the underlying segment, whatever the body segment considered and the visual condition. Thus, in this group, head, shoulder and hip moved independently from each other during stance control, roughly without taking into account the visual condition.The results, emphasising a differential weighting of sensory input involved in both perceptual and postural control, are discussed in terms of the differential choice and/or ability to select the adequate frame of reference common to both cognitive and motor spatial activities. We assumed that a motor-somesthetics "neglect" or a lack of mastering of these inputs/outputs rather than a mere visual dependence in FD subjects would generate these interindividual differences in both spatial perception and postural balance. This proprioceptive "neglect" is assumed to lead FD subjects to sensory reweighting, whereas proprioceptive dominance would lead FI subjects to a greater ability in selecting the adequate frame of reference in the case of intersensory disturbances. Finally, this study also provides evidence for a new interpretation of the visual field dependence–independence dimension in both spatial perception and postural control.