Influence of visual biofeedback and inherent stability on trunk postural control

Abstract

BackgroundFor individuals who never achieve independent standing, rehabilitation is focused on trunk posture and balance control. Visual biofeedback has the potential to augment sitting balance training, however previous work in this area has been limited to standing. Research questionTo what extent do different types of visual biofeedback influence trunk sway in sitting? MethodsTwelve healthy young adults sat on an articulating bench. During ‘sway referencing’ trials, the bench tilted up and down in proportion to trunk sway in the frontal plane. This paradigm increased difficulty of the balance task and required participants to rely on visual and vestibular cues. Participants were provided different visual biofeedback through a rotating needle-gage display. Trials lasted 165 s, were ordered randomly, and included either direct feedback (needle rotated in proportion to body sway), inverted feedback (needle rotated in the opposite direction of sway), time delayed feedback (0.5 s), random feedback, eyes closed, or control (eyes open with screen off). To explore the impact of inherent stability, trials were repeated with and without external trunk support. ResultsBody sway depended on feedback type. Specifically, direct and inverted feedback reduced root-mean-squared (RMS) sway the most, time delayed feedback had a smaller effect, and random visual feedback increased participants’ RMS sway compared to control. Frequency domain analyses demonstrated direct and inverted visual feedback reduced sway amplitude at the lower frequencies while having minimal effect on (or increasing) sway amplitude at higher frequencies. SignificanceThis study extends previous work by showing that visual biofeedback can have powerful effects on sitting balance, even with external support. Results from the different types of feedback conditions further our understanding of how the brain interprets visual biofeedback. Frequency-based results were similar to previous studies using different modalities and suggest participants interpret biofeedback through sensory addition as opposed to sensory substitution.