Filtern
Dokumenttyp
- Wissenschaftlicher Artikel (12)
- Postprint (3)
- Dissertation (2)
Gehört zur Bibliographie
- ja (17)
Schlagworte
- balance (17) (entfernen)
Physical fatigue (PF) negatively affects postural control, resulting in impaired balance performance in young and older adults. Similar effects on postural control can be observed for mental fatigue (MF) mainly in older adults. Controversial results exist for young adults. There is a void in the literature on the effects of fatigue on balance and cortical activity. Therefore, this study aimed to examine the acute effects of PF and MF on postural sway and cortical activity. Fifteen healthy young adults aged 28 ± 3 years participated in this study. MF and PF protocols comprising of an all-out repeated sit-to-stand task and a computer-based attention network test, respectively, were applied in random order. Pre and post fatigue, cortical activity and postural sway (i.e., center of pressure displacements [CoPd], velocity [CoPv], and CoP variability [CV CoPd, CV CoPv]) were tested during a challenging bipedal balance board task. Absolute spectral power was calculated for theta (4–7.5 Hz), alpha-2 (10.5–12.5 Hz), beta-1 (13–18 Hz), and beta-2 (18.5–25 Hz) in frontal, central, and parietal regions of interest (ROI) and baseline-normalized. Inference statistics revealed a significant time-by-fatigue interaction for CoPd (p = 0.009, d = 0.39, Δ 9.2%) and CoPv (p = 0.009, d = 0.36, Δ 9.2%), and a significant main effect of time for CoP variability (CV CoPd: p = 0.001, d = 0.84; CV CoPv: p = 0.05, d = 0.62). Post hoc analyses showed a significant increase in CoPd (p = 0.002, d = 1.03) and CoPv (p = 0.003, d = 1.03) following PF but not MF. For cortical activity, a significant time-by-fatigue interaction was found for relative alpha-2 power in parietal (p < 0.001, d = 0.06) areas. Post hoc tests indicated larger alpha-2 power increases after PF (p < 0.001, d = 1.69, Δ 3.9%) compared to MF (p = 0.001, d = 1.03, Δ 2.5%). In addition, changes in parietal alpha-2 power and measures of postural sway did not correlate significantly, irrespective of the applied fatigue protocol. No significant changes were found for the other frequency bands, irrespective of the fatigue protocol and ROI under investigation. Thus, the applied PF protocol resulted in increased postural sway (CoPd and CoPv) and CoP variability accompanied by enhanced alpha-2 power in the parietal ROI while MF led to increased CoP variability and alpha-2 power in our sample of young adults. Potential underlying cortical mechanisms responsible for the greater increase in parietal alpha-2 power after PF were discussed but could not be clearly identified as cause. Therefore, further future research is needed to decipher alternative interpretations.
Physical fatigue (PF) negatively affects postural control, resulting in impaired balance performance in young and older adults. Similar effects on postural control can be observed for mental fatigue (MF) mainly in older adults. Controversial results exist for young adults. There is a void in the literature on the effects of fatigue on balance and cortical activity. Therefore, this study aimed to examine the acute effects of PF and MF on postural sway and cortical activity. Fifteen healthy young adults aged 28 ± 3 years participated in this study. MF and PF protocols comprising of an all-out repeated sit-to-stand task and a computer-based attention network test, respectively, were applied in random order. Pre and post fatigue, cortical activity and postural sway (i.e., center of pressure displacements [CoPd], velocity [CoPv], and CoP variability [CV CoPd, CV CoPv]) were tested during a challenging bipedal balance board task. Absolute spectral power was calculated for theta (4–7.5 Hz), alpha-2 (10.5–12.5 Hz), beta-1 (13–18 Hz), and beta-2 (18.5–25 Hz) in frontal, central, and parietal regions of interest (ROI) and baseline-normalized. Inference statistics revealed a significant time-by-fatigue interaction for CoPd (p = 0.009, d = 0.39, Δ 9.2%) and CoPv (p = 0.009, d = 0.36, Δ 9.2%), and a significant main effect of time for CoP variability (CV CoPd: p = 0.001, d = 0.84; CV CoPv: p = 0.05, d = 0.62). Post hoc analyses showed a significant increase in CoPd (p = 0.002, d = 1.03) and CoPv (p = 0.003, d = 1.03) following PF but not MF. For cortical activity, a significant time-by-fatigue interaction was found for relative alpha-2 power in parietal (p < 0.001, d = 0.06) areas. Post hoc tests indicated larger alpha-2 power increases after PF (p < 0.001, d = 1.69, Δ 3.9%) compared to MF (p = 0.001, d = 1.03, Δ 2.5%). In addition, changes in parietal alpha-2 power and measures of postural sway did not correlate significantly, irrespective of the applied fatigue protocol. No significant changes were found for the other frequency bands, irrespective of the fatigue protocol and ROI under investigation. Thus, the applied PF protocol resulted in increased postural sway (CoPd and CoPv) and CoP variability accompanied by enhanced alpha-2 power in the parietal ROI while MF led to increased CoP variability and alpha-2 power in our sample of young adults. Potential underlying cortical mechanisms responsible for the greater increase in parietal alpha-2 power after PF were discussed but could not be clearly identified as cause. Therefore, further future research is needed to decipher alternative interpretations.
Vegetation with an adequate supply of water might contribute to cooling the land surface around it through the latent heat flux of transpiration. This study investigates the potential estimation of evaporative cooling at plot scale, using soybean as example. Some of the plants' physiological parameters were monitored and sampled at weekly intervals. A physics-based model was then applied to estimate the irrigation-induced cooling effect within and above the canopy during the middle and late season of the soybean growth period. We then examined the results of the temperature changes at a temporal resolution of ten minutes between every two irrigation rounds. During the middle and late season of growth, the cooling effects caused by evapotranspiration within and above the canopy were, on average, 4.4 K and 2.9 K, respectively. We used quality indicators such as R-squared (R-2) and mean absolute error (MAE) to evaluate the performance of the model simulation. The performance of the model in this study was better above the canopy (R-2 = 0.98, MAE = 0.3 K) than below (R-2 = 0.87, MAE = 0.9 K) due to the predefined thermodynamic condition used to estimate evaporative cooling. Moreover, the study revealed that canopy cooling contributes to mitigating heat stress conditions during the middle and late seasons of crop growth.
Coordination of the trunk and hips is crucial for successful dynamic balance in many activities of daily living. Persons with recurrent low back pain (rLBP), both while symptomatic and during periods of symptom remission, exhibit dysfunctional muscle activation patterns and coordination of these joints. In a novel dynamic balance task where persons in remission from rLBP exhibit dissociated trunk motion, it is unknown how trunk and hip musculature are coordinated. Activation of hip and trunk muscles were acquired from nineteen persons with and without rLBP during the Balance-Dexterity Task, which involves balancing on one limb while compressing an unstable spring with the other. There were no between-group differences in activation amplitude for any muscle groups tested. In back-healthy control participants, hip and trunk muscle activation amplitudes increased proportionally in response to the added instability of the spring (R = 0.837, p < 0.001). Increases in muscle activation amplitudes in the group in remission from rLBP were not proportional (R = 0.113, p = 0.655). Instead, hip muscle activation in this group was associated with task performance, i.e. dexterous control of the spring (R = 0.676, p = 0.002). These findings highlight atypical coordination of hip and trunk musculature potentially related to task demands in persons with rLBP even during remission from pain.
Electroencephalographic (EEG) research indicates changes in adults' low frequency bands of frontoparietal brain areas executing different balance tasks with increasing postural demands. However, this issue is unsolved for adolescents when performing the same balance task with increasing difficulty. Therefore, we examined the effects of a progressively increasing balance task difficulty on balance performance and brain activity in adolescents. Thirteen healthy adolescents aged 16-17 year performed tests in bipedal upright stance on a balance board with six progressively increasing levels of task difficulty. Postural sway and cortical activity were recorded simultaneously using a pressure sensitive measuring system and EEG. The power spectrum was analyzed for theta (4-7 Hz) and alpha-2 (10-12 Hz) frequency bands in pre-defined frontal, central, and parietal clusters of electrocortical sources. Repeated measures analysis of variance (rmANOVA) showed a significant main effect of task difficulty for postural sway (p < 0.001; d = 6.36). Concomitantly, the power spectrum changed in frontal, bilateral central, and bilateral parietal clusters. RmANOVAs revealed significant main effects of task difficulty for theta band power in the frontal (p < 0.001, d = 1.80) and both central clusters (left: p < 0.001, d = 1.49; right: p < 0.001, d = 1.42) as well as for alpha-2 band power in both parietal clusters (left: p < 0.001, d = 1.39; right: p < 0.001, d = 1.05) and in the central right cluster (p = 0.005, d = 0.92). Increases in theta band power (frontal, central) and decreases in alpha-2 power (central, parietal) with increasing balance task difficulty may reflect increased attentional processes and/or error monitoring as well as increased sensory information processing due to increasing postural demands. In general, our findings are mostly in agreement with studies conducted in adults. Similar to adult studies, our data with adolescents indicated the involvement of frontoparietal brain areas in the regulation of postural control. In addition, we detected that activity of selected brain areas (e.g., bilateral central) changed with increasing postural demands.
Cross-education has been extensively investigated with adults. Adult studies report asymmetrical cross-education adaptations predominately after dominant limb training. The objective of the study was to examine unilateral leg press (LP) training of the dominant or nondominant leg on contralateral and ipsilateral strength and balance measures. Forty-two youth (10-13 years) were placed (random allocation) into a dominant (n = 15) or nondominant (n = 14) leg press training group or nontraining control (n = 13). Experimental groups trained 3 times per week for 8 weeks and were tested pre-/post-training for ipsilateral and contralateral 1-repetition maximum (RM) horizontal LP, maximum voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) of knee extensors (KE) and flexors (KF), countermovement jump (CMJ), triple hop test (THT), MVIC strength of elbow flexors (EF) and handgrip, as well as the stork and Y balance tests. Both dominant and nondominant LP training significantly (p < 0.05) increased both ipsilateral and contralateral lower body strength (LP 1RM (dominant: 59.6%-81.8%; nondominant: 59.5%-96.3%), KE MVIC (dominant: 12.4%-18.3%; nondominant: 8.6%-18.6%), KF MVIC (dominant: 7.9%-22.3%; nondominant: nonsignificant-3.8%), and power (CMJ: dominant: 11.1%-18.1%; nondominant: 7.7%-16.6%)). The exception was that nondominant LP training demonstrated a nonsignificant change with the contralateral KF MVIC. Other significant improvements were with nondominant LP training on ipsilateral EF 1RM (6.2%) and THT (9.6%). There were no significant changes with EF and handgrip MVIC. The contralateral leg stork balance test was impaired following dominant LP training. KF MVIC exhibited the only significant relative post-training to pretraining (post-test/pre-test) ratio differences between dominant versus nondominant LP cross-education training effects. In conclusion, children exhibit symmetrical cross-education or global training adaptations with unilateral training of dominant or nondominant upper leg.
There is evidence for cortical contribution to the regulation of human postural control. Interference from concurrently performed cognitive tasks supports this notion, and the lateral prefrontal cortex (lPFC) has been suggested to play a prominent role in the processing of purely cognitive as well as cognitive-postural dual tasks. The degree of cognitive-motor interference varies greatly between individuals, but it is unresolved whether individual differences in the recruitment of specific lPFC regions during cognitive dual tasking are associated with individual differences in cognitive-motor interference. Here, we investigated inter-individual variability in a cognitive-postural multitasking situation in healthy young adults (n = 29) in order to relate these to inter-individual variability in lPFC recruitment during cognitive multitasking. For this purpose, a oneback working memory task was performed either as single task or as dual task in order to vary cognitive load. Participants performed these cognitive single and dual tasks either during upright stance on a balance pad that was placed on top of a force plate or during fMRI measurement with little to no postural demands. We hypothesized dual one-back task performance to be associated with lPFC recruitment when compared to single one-back task performance. In addition, we expected individual variability in lPFC recruitment to be associated with postural performance costs during concurrent dual one-back performance. As expected, behavioral performance costs in postural sway during dual-one back performance largely varied between individuals and so did lPFC recruitment during dual one-back performance. Most importantly, individuals who recruited the right mid-lPFC to a larger degree during dual one-back performance also showed greater postural sway as measured by larger performance costs in total center of pressure displacements. This effect was selective to the high-load dual one-back task and suggests a crucial role of the right lPFC in allocating resources during cognitivemotor interference. Our study provides further insight into the mechanisms underlying cognitive-motor multitasking and its impairments.
There is evidence for cortical contribution to the regulation of human postural control. Interference from concurrently performed cognitive tasks supports this notion, and the lateral prefrontal cortex (lPFC) has been suggested to play a prominent role in the processing of purely cognitive as well as cognitive-postural dual tasks. The degree of cognitive-motor interference varies greatly between individuals, but it is unresolved whether individual differences in the recruitment of specific lPFC regions during cognitive dual tasking are associated with individual differences in cognitive-motor interference. Here, we investigated inter-individual variability in a cognitive-postural multitasking situation in healthy young adults (n = 29) in order to relate these to inter-individual variability in lPFC recruitment during cognitive multitasking. For this purpose, a oneback working memory task was performed either as single task or as dual task in order to vary cognitive load. Participants performed these cognitive single and dual tasks either during upright stance on a balance pad that was placed on top of a force plate or during fMRI measurement with little to no postural demands. We hypothesized dual one-back task performance to be associated with lPFC recruitment when compared to single one-back task performance. In addition, we expected individual variability in lPFC recruitment to be associated with postural performance costs during concurrent dual one-back performance. As expected, behavioral performance costs in postural sway during dual-one back performance largely varied between individuals and so did lPFC recruitment during dual one-back performance. Most importantly, individuals who recruited the right mid-lPFC to a larger degree during dual one-back performance also showed greater postural sway as measured by larger performance costs in total center of pressure displacements. This effect was selective to the high-load dual one-back task and suggests a crucial role of the right lPFC in allocating resources during cognitivemotor interference. Our study provides further insight into the mechanisms underlying cognitive-motor multitasking and its impairments.
Power training programs have proved to be effective in improving components of physical fitness such as speed. According to the concept of training specificity, it was postulated that exercises must attempt to closely mimic the demands of the respective activity. When transferring this idea to speed development, the purpose of the present study was to examine the effects of resisted sprint (RST) vs. traditional power training (TPT) on physical fitness in healthy young adults. Thirty-five healthy, physically active adults were randomly assigned to a RST (n = 10, 23 ± 3 years), a TPT (n = 9, 23 ± 3 years), or a passive control group (n = 16, 23 ± 2 years). RST and TPT exercised for 6 weeks with three training sessions/week each lasting 45–60 min. RST comprised frontal and lateral sprint exercises using an expander system with increasing levels of resistance that was attached to a treadmill (h/p/cosmos). TPT included ballistic strength training at 40% of the one-repetition-maximum for the lower limbs (e.g., leg press, knee extensions). Before and after training, sprint (20-m sprint), change-of-direction speed (T-agility test), jump (drop, countermovement jump), and balance performances (Y balance test) were assessed. ANCOVA statistics revealed large main effects of group for 20-m sprint velocity and ground contact time (0.81 ≤ d ≤ 1.00). Post-hoc tests showed higher sprint velocity following RST and TPT (0.69 ≤ d ≤ 0.82) when compared to the control group, but no difference between RST and TPT. Pre-to-post changes amounted to 4.5% for RST [90%CI: (−1.1%;10.1%), d = 1.23] and 2.6% for TPT [90%CI: (0.4%;4.8%), d = 1.59]. Additionally, ground contact times during sprinting were shorter following RST and TPT (0.68 ≤ d ≤ 1.09) compared to the control group, but no difference between RST and TPT. Pre-to-post changes amounted to −6.3% for RST [90%CI: (−11.4%;−1.1%), d = 1.45) and −2.7% for TPT [90%CI: (−4.2%;−1.2%), d = 2.36]. Finally, effects for change-of-direction speed, jump, and balance performance varied from small-to-large. The present findings indicate that 6 weeks of RST and TPT produced similar effects on 20-m sprint performance compared with a passive control in healthy and physically active, young adults. However, no training-related effects were found for change-of-direction speed, jump and balance performance. We conclude that both training regimes can be applied for speed development.
Power training programs have proved to be effective in improving components of physical fitness such as speed. According to the concept of training specificity, it was postulated that exercises must attempt to closely mimic the demands of the respective activity. When transferring this idea to speed development, the purpose of the present study was to examine the effects of resisted sprint (RST) vs. traditional power training (TPT) on physical fitness in healthy young adults. Thirty-five healthy, physically active adults were randomly assigned to a RST (n = 10, 23 ± 3 years), a TPT (n = 9, 23 ± 3 years), or a passive control group (n = 16, 23 ± 2 years). RST and TPT exercised for 6 weeks with three training sessions/week each lasting 45–60 min. RST comprised frontal and lateral sprint exercises using an expander system with increasing levels of resistance that was attached to a treadmill (h/p/cosmos). TPT included ballistic strength training at 40% of the one-repetition-maximum for the lower limbs (e.g., leg press, knee extensions). Before and after training, sprint (20-m sprint), change-of-direction speed (T-agility test), jump (drop, countermovement jump), and balance performances (Y balance test) were assessed. ANCOVA statistics revealed large main effects of group for 20-m sprint velocity and ground contact time (0.81 ≤ d ≤ 1.00). Post-hoc tests showed higher sprint velocity following RST and TPT (0.69 ≤ d ≤ 0.82) when compared to the control group, but no difference between RST and TPT. Pre-to-post changes amounted to 4.5% for RST [90%CI: (−1.1%;10.1%), d = 1.23] and 2.6% for TPT [90%CI: (0.4%;4.8%), d = 1.59]. Additionally, ground contact times during sprinting were shorter following RST and TPT (0.68 ≤ d ≤ 1.09) compared to the control group, but no difference between RST and TPT. Pre-to-post changes amounted to −6.3% for RST [90%CI: (−11.4%;−1.1%), d = 1.45) and −2.7% for TPT [90%CI: (−4.2%;−1.2%), d = 2.36]. Finally, effects for change-of-direction speed, jump, and balance performance varied from small-to-large. The present findings indicate that 6 weeks of RST and TPT produced similar effects on 20-m sprint performance compared with a passive control in healthy and physically active, young adults. However, no training-related effects were found for change-of-direction speed, jump and balance performance. We conclude that both training regimes can be applied for speed development.