Athlete And Non-athlete Quiet Stance Postural Performance

Abstract

Measures of postural performance have been studied extensively in athletes, focusing primarily on static standing; however, little is known regarding postural performance in athletes versus non-athletes during static stance and functional postural assessments. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to investigate differences in static and dynamic postural sway assessments of center of pressure (CoP) in athlete and non-athlete populations. METHODS: 28 collegiate athletes (ATH) (21 female, mean age 18.4 ± 0.67 years, 7 male, mean age 19.42 ± 2.14 years) and 30 college-age non-athlete controls (NON) (21 female, mean age 22.2 ± 1.05 years, 9 male, mean age 22.85 ± 1.34 years) completed two trials of eyes open and eyes closed quiet standing for 30 seconds, and the WiiFit Soccer Heading Game. During quiet stance, participants were instructed to stand with their feet together and stand as still as possible on the Wii Fit board, which was placed over a force plate. For the WiiFit Soccer Heading Game, participants were instructed to keep their eyes in the center of the screen as much as possible while shifting their weight from side to side to play the game. Raw CoP data was collected using a force platform (1000Hz) and analyzed further using a custom code. Peak Excursion Velocity (PEV) and Root Mean Square (RMS) excursion in the anteroposterior (AP) and mediolateral (ML) directions was calculated from the data along with 95% Confidence Ellipse (CE). RESULTS: One-way ANOVAs revealed that ATH had significantly lower (p=0.048) CoP RMS in the ML direction (4.1 ± 1.3 mm) and significantly (p=0.012) lower eyes open CE (0.3 ± 0.1 mm) during the quiet stance eyes open trials when compared to NON (4.9 ± 1.9 mm) and (0.4 ± 0.2mm), respectively. There were no significant differences between groups regarding PEV in the ML and AP directions with eyes open, eyes closed, or dynamic (WiiFit) situations. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that athletes are more stable with eyes open during quiet upright stance. However, during a dynamic postural task, which may more closely resemble athletic performance, no differences were observed. These findings suggest that ATH use different postural mechanisms than NON during quiet upright stance with eyes open. This could be due to an enhanced utilization of visual cues as a result of a visually rich training paradigm.