背景:在步态终止过程中,从运动到站立姿势的过渡会出现姿势稳定性的挑战,通常伴随着另一项任务(例如,打开门),这可能会使控制复杂化。然而,在从事次要手动任务时,关于终止步态期间的姿势控制知之甚少。
目标:在有和没有任务的情况下终止步态时,姿势控制的变化是什么?
方法:在横截面设计中,15名健康的年轻人(M=8,F=7;27±2岁;69±13kg;171±8cm)同时经历了单任务步态终止(GTO)和双任务(步态终止加到达;GTR)。在两个不同阶段:准备阶段和稳定阶段,使用压力中心(CoP)和前后(AP)和内侧外侧(ML)方向的胸骨位置测量姿势接触时间(TtC)。记录了五次成功的试验以获得平均TtC。为了对TTC进行统计分析,使用双尾配对t检验(p=.05),因为满足正态。
结果:对于准备阶段,对警察来说没有什么不同,但是在GTR中,AP的胸骨位置的TtC比GTO短(p=.001)。同时,对于稳定阶段,在AP和ML方向的GTR中,CoP和胸骨位置的TtC都更长(p's<.001)。
结论:我们建议在准备阶段,在GTR中,胸骨位置的TtC较短,CoP的TtC完整,这表明健康的年轻人是灵活的,因为他们顺利地将CoP控制与执行理解任务所需的上身需求相结合。同时,对于稳定阶段,在双重终止和理解任务中更长的TtC表明,当返回直立姿势时,理解运动施加的扰动不会导致稳定性降低。
BACKGROUND: Challenges to postural stability emerge in the transition from locomotion to a standing posture as during gait termination, often accompanied by another task (e.g., opening a door), which may complicate control. However, less is known about postural control during terminating gait while engaged in a secondary manual task.
OBJECTIVE: What are the changes in postural control when terminating gait with and without a prehension task?
METHODS: In a cross-sectional design, 15 healthy young adults (M=8, F=7; 27±2 years; 69±13 kg; 171±8 cm) underwent both a single task gait termination (GTO) and dual task (gait termination plus reaching; GTR). Postural Time-to-Contact (TtC) was measured using Center of Pressure (CoP) and the sternum position in anterior-posterior (AP) and medial-lateral (ML) directions over two different phases: preparatory phase and stabilization phase. Five successful trials were recorded to obtain a mean TtC. For statistical analysis of TtC, a two-tailed paired t-test was used (p =.05) as normality was satisfied.
RESULTS: For the preparatory phase, there were no differences for the CoP, but TtC of the sternum position in AP was shorter in GTR than GTO (p =.001). Meanwhile, for the stabilization phase, TtCs of both the CoP and sternum position were longer in GTR in both AP and ML directions (p\'s <.001).
CONCLUSIONS: We suggest that for the preparatory phase, the shorter TtC of the sternum position with intact TtC of the CoP in GTR indicates that healthy young individuals are flexible, in that they smoothly integrate CoP control with the upper body demands required to also perform the prehension task. Meanwhile, for the stabilization phase, the longer TtC in dual termination and prehension task indicates that the perturbation imposed by the prehension movement did not result in reduced stabilization when returning to an upright posture.