Non-physical balance training has demonstrated to be efficient to improve postural control in young people. However, little is known about the potential to increase corticospinal excitability by mental simulation in lower leg muscles. Mental simulation of isolated, voluntary contractions of limb muscles increase corticospinal excitability but more automated tasks like walking seem to have no or only minor effects on motor-evoked potentials (MEPs) evoked by transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). This may be related to the way of performing the mental simulation or the task itself. Therefore, the present study aimed to clarify how corticospinal excitability is modulated during AO+MI, MI and action observation (AO) of balance tasks. For this purpose, MEPs and H-reflexes were elicited during three different mental simulations (a) AO+MI, (b) MI and (c) passive AO. For each condition, two balance tasks were evaluated: (1) quiet upright stance (static) and (2) compensating a medio-lateral perturbation while standing on a free-swinging platform (dynamic). AO+MI resulted in the largest facilitation of MEPs followed by MI and passive AO. MEP facilitation was significantly larger in the dynamic perturbation than in the static standing task. Interestingly, passive observation resulted in hardly any facilitation independent of the task. H-reflex amplitudes were not modulated. The current results demonstrate that corticospinal excitability during mental simulation of balance tasks is influenced by both the type of mental simulation and the task difficulty. As H-reflexes and background EMG were not modulated, it may be argued that changes in excitability of the primary motor cortex were responsible for the MEP modulation. From a functional point of view, our findings suggest best training/rehabilitation effects when combining MI with AO during challenging postural tasks.
Purpose: Balance training (BT) studies in children reported conflicting results without evidence for improvements in children under the age of 8. The aim of this study therefore was to compare BT adaptations in children of different age groups to clarify whether young age prevents positive training outcomes. Methods: The effects of 5 weeks of child-oriented BT were tested in 77 (38 girls and 39 boys) participants of different age groups (6-7 y, 11-12 y, and 14-15 y) and compared with age-matched controls. Static and dynamic postural control, explosive strength, and jump height were assessed. Results: Across age groups, dynamic postural sway decreased (−18.7%; P = .012; η 2 p = .09) and explosive force increased (8.6%; P = .040; η 2 p = .06) in the intervention groups. Age-specific improvements were observed in dynamic postural sway, with greatest effects in the youngest group (−28.8%; P = .026; r = .61). Conclusion: In contrast to previous research using adult-oriented balance exercises, this study demonstrated for the first time that postural control can be trained from as early as the age of 6 years in children when using child-oriented BT. Therefore, the conception of the training seems to be essential in improving balance skills in young children.
Age-related changes in brain activation other than in the primary motor cortex are not well known with respect to dynamic balance control. Therefore, the current study aimed to explore age-related differences in the control of static and dynamic postural tasks using fMRI during mental simulation of balance tasks. For this purpose, 16 elderly (72 ± 5 years) and 16 young adults (27 ± 5 years) were asked to mentally simulate a static and a dynamic balance task by motor imagery (MI), action observation (AO), or the combination of AO and MI (AO + MI). Age-related differences were detected in the form of larger brain activations in elderly compared to young participants, especially in the challenging dynamic task when applying AO + MI. Interestingly, when MI (no visual input) was contrasted to AO (visual input), elderly participants revealed deactivation of subcortical areas. The finding that the elderly demonstrated overactivation in mostly cortical areas in challenging postural conditions with visual input (AO + MI and AO) but deactivation in subcortical areas during MI (no vision) may indicate that elderly individuals allocate more cortical resources to the internal representation of dynamic postural tasks. Furthermore, it might be assumed that they depend more strongly on visual input to activate subcortical internal representations.
Aging is associated with a shift from an automatic to a more cortical postural control strategy, which goes along with deteriorations in postural stability. Although balance training has been shown to effectively counteract these behavioral deteriorations, little is known about the effect of balance training on brain activity during postural tasks in older adults. We, therefore, assessed postural stability and brain activity using fMRI during motor imagery alone (MI) and in combination with action observation (AO; i.e., AO+MI) of a challenging balance task in older adults before and after 5 weeks of balance training. Results showed a nonsignificant trend toward improvements in postural stability after balance training, accompanied by reductions in brain activity during AO+MI of the balance task in areas relevant for postural control, which have been shown to be over-activated in older adults during (simulation of) motor performance, including motor, premotor, and multisensory vestibular areas. This suggests that balance training may reverse the age-related cortical over-activations and lead to changes in the control of upright posture toward the one observed in young adults.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.