4.4 Article

Relative contributions of balance and voluntary leg-coordination deficits to cerebellar gait ataxia

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROPHYSIOLOGY
卷 89, 期 4, 页码 1844-1856

出版社

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/jn.00787.2002

关键词

-

资金

  1. NICHD NIH HHS [HD-40289, HD-01199] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Different cerebellar regions participate in balance control and voluntary limb coordination, both of which might be important for normal bipedal walking. We wanted to determine the relative contributions of balance versus leg-coordination deficits to cerebellar gait ataxia in humans. We studied 20 subjects with cerebellar damage and 20 control subjects performing three tasks: a lateral weight-shifting task to measure balance, a visually guided stepping task to measure leg-coordination, and walking. We recorded three-dimensional joint position data during all tasks and center of pressure coordinates during weight-shifting. Each cerebellar subject was categorized as having no detectable deficits, a balance deficit only, a leg-placement deficit only, or both deficits. We then determined the walking abnormalities associated with each of these categories. Five of 10 measures of gait ataxia were abnormal in cerebellar subjects with a balance deficit, but only 1 was abnormal in cerebellar subjects with a leg-placement deficit. Furthermore, subjects with a balance deficit performed worse than subjects with a leg-placement deficit on 9 of the 10 gait measures. Finally, performance on the balance task, but not the leg-placement task, explained a significant proportion of the variance in walking speed for the entire cerebellar group. We conclude that balance deficits are more closely related to cerebellar gait ataxia than leg-placement deficits. Our findings are consistent with animal literature, which has suggested that cerebellar control of balance and gait are interrelated, and dissociable from cerebellar control of voluntary, visually guided limb movements.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据