4.6 Article

Changes in the activity of the cerebral cortex relate to postural response modification when warned of a perturbation

期刊

CLINICAL NEUROPHYSIOLOGY
卷 119, 期 6, 页码 1431-1442

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinph.2008.02.015

关键词

EEG; adaptation; posture; balance; cortex; contingent negative variation

资金

  1. NIA NIH HHS [R01 AG006457-18, R37 AG006457, AG06457, R01 AG006457] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NINDS NIH HHS [F31NS048800, F31 NS048800, F31 NS048800-03] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To determine whether the cerebral cortex contributes to modifying upcoming postural responses to external perturbations when provided with prior warning of the perturbation. Methods: Electroencephalographic (EEG) potentials were recorded from 12 healthy human subjects (21-32 years of age) before perturbing their balance with backward translations of a platform under their feet. The subjects responded with and without a visual cue that warned them 2 s before the perturbation (the Cue and No Cue conditions, respectively). Results: Contingent negative variation (CNV) was evident before perturbation onset in only the Cue condition. In the Cue condition, the subjects also produced smaller center of pressure (CoP) displacements than in the No Cue condition. The cue-related difference in the subjects' CNV potentials correlated with the cue-related difference in their CoP displacements. No significant associations existed among the CNV potentials and any cue-related postural adjustments made before the perturbation. Conclusions: Cortical activity before an externally triggered perturbation associates with modifications of the ensuing postural response. Significance: This is the first study to demonstrate a cortical correlate for changes in central postural set that modify externally triggered postural responses based on anticipation. (c) 2008 International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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