Modeling margin of stability with feet in place following a postural perturbation: Effect of altered anthropometric models for estimated extrapolated centre of mass.

BACKGROUND: Maintaining the centre of mass (CoM) of the body within the base of support is a critical component of upright balance; the ability to accurately quantify balance recovery mechanisms is critical for many research teams.

RESEARCH QUESTION: The purpose of this study was to investigate how exclusion of specific body segments in an anthropometric CoM model influenced a dynamic measure of postural stability, the margin of stability (MoS), following a support-surface perturbation.

METHODS: Healthy young adults (n = 10) were instrumented with kinematic markers and a safety harness. Sixteen support-surface translations, scaled to ensure responses did not involve a change in base of support, were then issued (backwards, forwards, left, or right). Whole-body CoM was estimated using four variations of a 13-segment anthropometric model: i) the full-model (WFM), and three simplified models, ii) excluding upper limbs (NAr); iii) excluding upper and lower limbs (HTP); iv) pelvis CoM (CoMp). The CoM calculated for each variant was then used to estimate extrapolated CoM (xCoM) position and the resulting MoS within the plane of postural disturbance.

RESULTS: Comparisons of simplified models to the full model revealed significant differences (p < 0.05) in MoS for all models in each perturbation condition; however, the largest differences were following sagittal plane based perturbations. Poor estimates of WFM MoS were most evident for HTP and CoMp models; these were associated with the greatest values of RMS/maximum error, poorest correlations, etc. The simplified models provided low-error approximates for frontal plane perturbations.

SIGNIFICANCE: Findings suggest that simplified calculations of CoM can be used by researchers without reducing MoS measurement accuracy; however, the degree of simplification should be context-dependent. For example, CoMp models may be appropriate for questions pertaining to frontal plane MoS; sagittal plane MoS necessitates inclusion of lower limb and HTP segments to prevent underestimation of postural stability.