POSTURAL CONTROL IN HEALTHY YOUNG ADULTS WITH AND WITHOUT CHRONIC MOTION SENSITIVITY

Alyahya  D; Johnson  EG; Daher  NS; Gaikwad  SB; Deshpande  S

doi:10.15621/ijphy/2016/v3i1/88898

Authors

Alyahya D Loma Linda University, School of Allied Health Professions, Department of Physical Therapy, Loma Linda California.
Johnson EG Loma Linda University, School of Allied Health Professions, Department of Physical Therapy, Loma Linda California.
Daher NS Loma Linda University, School of Allied Health Professions, Department of Allied Health Studies, Loma Linda California.
Gaikwad SB Loma Linda University, School of Allied Health Professions, Department of Physical Therapy, Loma Linda California.
Deshpande S Loma Linda University, School of Allied Health Professions, Department of Physical Therapy, Loma Linda California.

Abstract

Background: Postural control requires complex processing of peripheral sensory inputs from the visual, somatosensory and vestibular systems. Motion sensitivity and decreased postural control are influenced by visual-vestibular conflicts.The purpose of this study was to measure the difference between the postural control of healthy adults with and without history of sub-clinical chronic motion sensitivity using a computerized dynamic posturography in a virtual reality environment. Sub-clinical chronic motion sensitivity was operationally defined as a history of avoiding activities causing dizziness, nausea, imbalance, and/or blurred vision without having a related medical diagnosis.
Methods: Twenty healthy adults between 22 and 33 years of age participated in the study. Eleven subjects had sub-clinical chronic motion sensitivity and 9 subjects did not. Postural control was measured in both groups using the Bertec Balance Advantage-Dynamic Computerized Dynamic Posturography with Immersion Virtual Reality (CDP-IVR). The CDP-IVR reports an over-all equilibrium score based on subjects’ center of gravity displacement and postural sway while immersed in a virtual reality environment. Subjects were tested on stable (condition 1) and unstable (condition2) platform conditions.
Results: There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of mean age, height, weight, body mass index in kg/m2, postural control scores for conditions 2, and average (p>0.05). However, significant differences were observed in mean postural control for condition 1 between groups (p=0.03).
Conclusions: Results of this study suggest that healthy young adults without chronic sub-clinical motion sensitivity have better postural control than those with chronic sub-clinical motion sensitivity. Further investigation is warranted to explore wider age ranges with larger samples sizes as well as intervention strategies to improve postural control.

Keywords:

Motion sensitivity, motion sickness, postural control, postural control balance, computerized dynamic posturography, virtual reality

DOI

https://doi.org/10.15621/ijphy/2016/v3i1/88898

References

1. Horak FB. Clinical Measurement of Postural Control in Adults. Phys Ther. 1987; 67(12):1881-5. 2. Massion J. Postural Control Systems in Developmental Perspective. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 1998; 22(4):465- 72. 3. Hassan BS, Mockett S, Doherty M. Static postural Int J Physiother 2016; 3(1) Page | 4 sway, proprioception, and maximal voluntary quadriceps contraction in patients with knee osteoarthritis and normal control subjects. Ann Rheum Dis. 2001; 60(6):612-8. 4. Cobb SV. Measurement of postural stability before and after immersion in a virtual environment. Appl Ergon. 1999; 30(1):47-57. 5. Akiduki H, Nishiike S, Watanabe H, Matsuoka K, Kubo T, Takeda N. Visual-vestibular conflict induced by virtual reality in humans. Neurosci Lett. 2003; 340(3):197-200. 6. Owen N, Leadbetter AG, Yardley L. Relationship between postural control and motion sickness in healthy subjects. Brain Res Bull. 1998; 47(5):471-4. 7. Bos JE, MacKinnon SN, Patterson A. Motion sickness symptoms in a ship motion simulator: effects of inside, outside, and no view. Aviat Space Environ Med. 2005; 76(12):1111-8. 8. Hoffman HG, Patterson DR, Carrougher GJ, Sharar SR. Effectiveness of Virtual Reality–Based Pain Control With Multiple Treatments. Clin J Pain. 2001; 17(3):229-35. 9. Kennedy RS, Lilienthal MG. Implications of balance disturbances following exposure to virtual reality systems. Virtual Reality Annual International Symposium. Research Triangle Park, NC, (11-15 Mar 1995). Available at: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=512477&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fxpls%2Fabs_all.jsp%3Farnumber%3D512477 10. Akizuki H, Uno A, Arai K, Morioka S, Ohyama S, Nishiike S, et al. Effects of immersion in virtual reality on postural control. Neurosci Lett. 2005; 379(1):23-6. 11. Bertec Corporation [cited 2014 April 15]. Available from: http://bertec.com/bertecbalance/our-products/ dynamic/ 12. Monsell EM, Furman JM, Herdman SJ, Konrad HR, Shepard NT. Computerized dynamic platform posturography. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1997; 117(4):394-8. 13. Palm HG, Lang P, Strobel J, Riesner HJ, Friemert B. Computerized dynamic posturography: the influence of platform stability on postural control. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2014; 93(1):49-55. 14. Broglio SP, Sosnoff JJ, Rosengren KS, McShane K. A comparison of balance performance: computerized dynamic posturography and a random motion platform. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2009; 90(1):145-50. 15. Redfern MS, Yardley L, Bronstein AM. Visual influences on balance. J Anxiety Disord. 2001; 15(1-2):81-94.