Search

The present paper focuses on the organization of posture and movement under normal and microgravity conditions. Two reference values subserving the control of erect posture and the performance of movements are analyzed. The first is 'geometrical' in nature and corresponds to the orientation of a body segment with respect to the external world. The second reference value, which involves the mass and inertia of the body segments, is the position of the centre of mass with respect to the foot support area. The reorganization of these parameters which occurs under microgravity is discussed in the framework of a hierarchical model of posture. Suggestions are made for training procedures which could be used to prevent loss of balance from occurring in astronauts on landing after long space flights., (Copyright 1998 Elsevier Science B.V.)

The aim of the present study was to determine (i) whether the centre of gravity (CG) shift resulting from the mechanical effect of arm raising in the frontal plane is minimized in standing subjects and (ii) whether this putative minimization is affected by the support conditions (unipedal vs bipedal) and/or by adding a load (3.5 kg) to the moving hand. Our results indicate first that a CG control does exist during bipedal stance (compensating for 31% of the mechanical shift), which increases markedly in unipedal stance (73%) and secondly, that an additional load is compensated for solely in the case of unipedal stance (81%).

The question was addressed in this study as to whether the kinematic synergy responsible for equilibrium control during upper trunk movements may involve an actual evaluation of the weight of the body segments. Five adult subjects were asked to bend the upper trunk forward or backward to an angle of about 35 degrees, first without any load and then with a 10 kg load fixed to their shoulders. The center of gravity (CG) shift in the sagittal direction which occurred at the end of the movement was compared versus without a load. Two patterns of CG shift were identified. In the first pattern shown by three subjects in forward and three in backward trunk bending, the CG shift remained the same, while in the other pattern (two subjects for forward and two for backward trunk bending), the CG shift increased by an amount corresponding to the purely mechanical effect of the load. These results indicate that the actual weight of the segments may be evaluated on the basis of sensory inputs and may be responsible for a change in the kinematic synergy which preserves the CG control during the upper trunk movement.

The ability to voluntarily stabilize the head in space during lateral rhythmic oscillations of the trunk has been investigated during parabolic flights. Five healthy young subjects, who gave informed consent, were examined. The movements were performed with eyes open or eyes closed, either during phases of microgravity or phases of normal gravity. The main result to emerge from this study is that the head may be stabilized in space about the roll axis under microgravity conditions with, as well as without vision, despite the reduction of the vestibular afferent and the muscle proprioceptive inputs. Moreover, the absence of head stabilization about the yaw axis confirms that the degrees of freedom of the neck can be independently controlled, as it was previously shown. These results seem to indicate that voluntary head stabilization does not depend crucially upon static vestibular afferents. Head stabilization in space may be in fact organized on the basis of either dynamic vestibular afferents or a postural body scheme.