Search

Background: Sensorimotor control of axial segments, which develops during childhood and is not mature until adolescence, is essential for the development of balance control during motor activities. Children with cerebral palsy (CP) have deficits in postural control when standing or walking, including less stabilization of the head and trunk which could affect postural control.Research Question: Is dynamic stabilization of axial segments during an unstable sitting task deficient in children with CP compared to typically developing children? Is this deficit correlated with the deficit of postural control during standing?Method: Seventeen children with CP (GMFCS I-II) and 17 typically-developing children from 6 to 12 years old were rated on the Trunk Control Measurement Scale (TCMS). In addition, posturography was evaluated in participants while they maintained their balance in stable sitting, unstable sitting, and quiet standing, under "eyes open" and "eyes closed" conditions. In sitting tasks, the participants had to remain stable while being prevented from using the lower and upper limbs (i.e. to ensure the involvement of axial segments alone).Results: Children with CP compared to TD children had significantly larger surface area, mean velocity and RMS values of CoP displacements measured during the unstable sitting task and the standing task, under both "eyes open" and "eyes closed" conditions. No significant group effects were observed during the stable sitting task. The TCMS total score was significantly lower, indicating trunk postural deficit, in the CP group than in the TD group and was significantly correlated with postural variables in the sitting and standing tasks.Significance: Children with CP indeed have a specific impairment in the postural control of axial segments. Since the postural control of axial segments is important for standing and walking, its impairment should be taken into account in rehabilitation programs for children with CP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Portable force-measurement technologies are becoming increasingly popular tools to examine the maturation of postural motor milestones, such as sitting and standing, in infants. These convenient, low-cost devices provide numerous opportunities to characterize postural development outside of the laboratory. However, it is important to understand the unique challenges and technical limitations associated with collecting center of pressure (CoP) data using portable force-measurement technologies in infant populations. This study uses a mathematical model to examine issues that emerge when using portable force-measurement technologies to collect sitting and standing postural data in infants. The results of our mathematical simulations demonstrate that the CoP errors from portable force-measurement technologies depend on the posture examined (e.g., sitting vs. standing), the anthropometrics of the person (e.g., height and weight), the frequency of body sway, and the experimental setup (e.g., an additional support surface being placed on top of the device). Recommendations are provided for developmental researchers interested in adopting these technologies in infant populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Children’s (3–5 years) and adults’ postural reactions to different conditions of visual flow information varying in its frequency content was examined using a moving room apparatus. Both groups experienced four conditions of visual input: low-frequency (0.20 Hz) visual oscillations, high-frequency (0.60 Hz) oscillations, multifrequency nonpredictable visual input, and no imposed visual information. Analyses of the frequency content of anterior–posterior (AP) sway revealed that postural reactions to the single-frequency conditions replicated previous findings; children were responsive to low- and high-frequency oscillations, whereas adults were responsive to low-frequency information. Extending previous work, AP sway in response to the nonpredictable condition revealed that both groups were responsive to the different components contained in the multifrequency visual information, although adults retained their frequency selectivity to low-frequency versus high-frequency content. These findings are discussed in relation to work examining feedback versus feedforward control of posture, and the reweighting of sensory inputs for postural control, as a function of development and task context. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Dissociated motor development (DMD) is considered when the baby starts independent walking late, with normality of the other fields of development. There is evidence that babies with DMD present an atypical crawling pattern and hypotonia. To investigate the frequency and characteristics of DMD, neurological examination was performed monthly in 177 healthy full-term babies from 6 months age, in urban and rural zone samples in Brazil. Among 20 children with atypical crawling, none presented hypotonia neither did they start independent walking late. The means of the ages at the begining of atypical crawling and independent walking acquisitions, 7.40mo (SD 1.4) and 12.76mo (SD 2.5) respectively, did not differ from the group with crossed crawling pattern. Thus, in this sample of Brazilian healthy children we did not find cases with DMD.

Abstract: The postural sway patterns of newly standing infants were compared under two conditions: standing while holding a toy and standing while not holding a toy. Infants exhibited a lower magnitude of postural sway and more complex sway patterns when holding the toy. These changes suggest that infants adapt postural sway in a manner that facilitates visually fixating on and stabilizing the toy in their hand. When simply standing, infants exhibited postural sway patterns that appeared to be more exploratory in nature. Exploratory sway patterns may allow infants to learn the affordances of their new standing posture. These results demonstrate that newly standing infants are capable of task-dependent postural control. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Seventy-one first-born infants who had been nursed in prone position since birth, were referred for motor assessment at 3 months, 5 months and 9 months. All infants were administered the same checklist of motor items, based on the Amiel-Tison Infant Neurological Evaluation and on the Brunet-Lézine Developmental Psychomotor Scale. Abnormalities in muscular shortening and delay in motor skills were found. These findings are critical as regards environmental influences on postural development, continuities in motor development and issues of early primary prevention. Early identification and follow-up programmes, including frequent changes in posture, are suggested in order to avoid abnormalities of motor behaviour and subsequently in postural patterns. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]