Introduction Negative pain-related cognitions are associated with persistence of low-back pain (LBP), but the mechanism underlying this association is not well understood. We propose that negative pain-related cognitions determine how threatening a motor task will be perceived, which in turn will affect how lumbar movements are performed, possibly with negative long-term effects on pain. Objective To assess the effect of postural threat on lumbar movement patterns in people with and without LBP, and to investigate whether this effect is associated with task-specific pain-related cognitions. Methods 30 back-healthy participants and 30 participants with LBP performed consecutive two trials of a seated repetitive reaching movement (45 times). During the first trial participants were threatened with mechanical perturbations, during the second trial participants were informed that the trial would be unperturbed. Movement patterns were characterized by temporal variability (CyclSD), local dynamic stability (LDE) and spatial variability (meanSD) of the relative lumbar Euler angles. Pain-related cognition was assessed with the task-specific ‘Expected Back Strain’-scale (EBS). A three-way mixed Manova was used to assess the effect of Threat, Group (LBP vs control) and EBS (above vs below median) on lumbar movement patterns. Results We found a main effect of threat on lumbar movement patterns. In the threat-condition, participants showed increased variability (MeanSDflexion-extension, p<0.000, η2 = 0.26; CyclSD, p = 0.003, η2 = 0.14) and decreased stability (LDE, p = 0.004, η2 = 0.14), indicating large effects of postural threat. Conclusion Postural threat increased variability and decreased stability of lumbar movements, regardless of group or EBS. These results suggest that perceived postural threat may underlie changes in motor behavior in patients with LBP. Since LBP is likely to impose such a threat, this could be a driver of changes in motor behavior in patients with LBP, as also supported by the higher spatial variability in the group with LBP and higher EBS in the reference condition.
LINK
Optimal postural control is an essential capacity in daily life and can be highly variable. The purpose of this study was to investigate if young people have the ability to choose the optimal postural control strategy according to the postural condition and to investigate if non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) influences the variability in proprioceptive postural control strategies. Young individuals with NSLBP (n = 106) and healthy controls (n = 50) were tested on a force plate in different postural conditions (i.e., sitting, stable support standing and unstable support standing). The role of proprioception in postural control was directly examined by means of muscle vibration on triceps surae and lumbar multifidus muscles. Root mean square and mean displacements of the center of pressure were recorded during the different trials. To appraise the proprioceptive postural control strategy, the relative proprioceptive weighting (RPW, ratio of ankle muscles proprioceptive inputs vs. back muscles proprioceptive inputs) was calculated. Postural robustness was significantly less in individuals with NSLBP during the more complex postural conditions (p < 0.05). Significantly higher RPW values were observed in the NSLBP group in all postural conditions (p < 0.05), suggesting less ability to rely on back muscle proprioceptive inputs for postural control. Therefore, healthy controls seem to have the ability to choose a more optimal postural control strategy according to the postural condition. In contrast, young people with NSLBP showed a reduced capacity to switch to a more multi-segmental postural control strategy during complex postural conditions, which leads to decreased postural robustness.
LINK
The basic level of postural control is functionally active from early infancy onwards: young infants possess a repertoire of direction-specific postural adjustments. Whether or not direction-specific adjustments are used depends on the child's age and the nature of the postural task. The second level of control emerges after 3 months: children start to develop the capacity to adapt postural activity to environmental constraints. But the adult form of postural adaptation first emerges after adolescence. Children with cerebral palsy (CP) in general have the ability to generate direction-specific adjustments, but they show a delayed development in the capacity to recruit direction-specific adjustments in tasks with a mild postural challenge. Children with CP virtually always have difficulties in the adaptation of direction-specific activity. The limited data available on the effect of intervention on postural development suggest that intervention involving active trial and error experience may accelerate postural development in typically developing infants and may improve postural control in children with or at high risk for a developmental motor disorder.
