Presentation Title

Athlete and Non-Athlete Quiet Stance Postural Performance

Location

Room 2904 A

Session Format

Paper Presentation

Research Area Topic:

Exercise Science & Human Performance - Biomechanics

Abstract

A multitude of differences in physical abilities exists in athletes. Measures of postural performance have been studied extensively in athletes; however, little is known regarding postural performance in athletes versus non-athletes. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to investigate differences in static and dynamic postural sway assessments of center of pressure (CoP) in athlete and non-athlete populations. METHODS: Thirty-five healthy athletes (ATH) Georgia (26 female, mean age 18.5 å± .0 years, 9 male, mean age 19.1 å± 1.96 years), and thirty-five healthy, college-age controls (NON) (26 female, mean age 22.26 å± 1.00 years, 9 male, mean age 22.66 å± 1.22 years) participated in this study. Each participant completed four trials of quiet standing open and eyes closed assessment, along with the WiiFit Soccer Heading Game. Raw CoP data was collected and analyzed further using a custom code. Peak Excursion Velocity (PEV) and Sample Entropy (SampEn) in the anteroposterior (AP) and mediolateral (ML) directions was calculated from the data along with 95% Confidence Ellipse (CE). RESULTS: The ANOVA revealed no significant differences between groups in PEV values in the eyes open ML (F(1,68) = .006, p=.937) or AP (F(1,68) = 1.490, p=.226) directions. No significant differences between groups were found in PEV values in the eyes closed condition in the ML (F(1,68) = .558, p=..458) or AP (F(1,68) = .038, p=.845) directions. During the dynamic postural control task, no significant differences between groups were found in PEV in the ML (F(1,68) = .016, p=.899) or AP (F(1,68) = 3.197, p=.078). In the eyes closed condition, there were no significant differences in CE between groups (F(1,68) = .073, p=.788). The dynamic postural task showed no significance in CE between groups (F(1,68) = .061, p=.806). The ANOVA revealed a significant difference between groups in the eyes open condition (F(1,68) = 5.480, p=.022). No significant differences in SampEn values between groups in the ML (F(1,68) = .107, p=.745) or AP (F(1,68) = 1.548, p=.218) directions in the eyes closed condition. In the eyes open condition, significant differences were found between athletes and non-athletes in both the ML (F(1,68) = 27.651, p < .001) and AP (F(1,68) = 30.714, p < .001) directions. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that athletes are more stable with eyes open during quiet upright stance. However, during a dynamic postural task, which may more closely resemble athletic performance, no differences were observed. These findings suggest that ATH use different postural mechanisms than NON during quiet upright stance with eyes open. This could be due to an enhanced utilization of visual cues as a result of a visually rich training paradigm.

Presentation Type and Release Option

Presentation (Open Access)

Start Date

4-16-2016 9:30 AM

End Date

4-16-2016 10:30 AM

This document is currently not available here.

Share

COinS
 
Apr 16th, 9:30 AM Apr 16th, 10:30 AM

Athlete and Non-Athlete Quiet Stance Postural Performance

Room 2904 A

A multitude of differences in physical abilities exists in athletes. Measures of postural performance have been studied extensively in athletes; however, little is known regarding postural performance in athletes versus non-athletes. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to investigate differences in static and dynamic postural sway assessments of center of pressure (CoP) in athlete and non-athlete populations. METHODS: Thirty-five healthy athletes (ATH) Georgia (26 female, mean age 18.5 å± .0 years, 9 male, mean age 19.1 å± 1.96 years), and thirty-five healthy, college-age controls (NON) (26 female, mean age 22.26 å± 1.00 years, 9 male, mean age 22.66 å± 1.22 years) participated in this study. Each participant completed four trials of quiet standing open and eyes closed assessment, along with the WiiFit Soccer Heading Game. Raw CoP data was collected and analyzed further using a custom code. Peak Excursion Velocity (PEV) and Sample Entropy (SampEn) in the anteroposterior (AP) and mediolateral (ML) directions was calculated from the data along with 95% Confidence Ellipse (CE). RESULTS: The ANOVA revealed no significant differences between groups in PEV values in the eyes open ML (F(1,68) = .006, p=.937) or AP (F(1,68) = 1.490, p=.226) directions. No significant differences between groups were found in PEV values in the eyes closed condition in the ML (F(1,68) = .558, p=..458) or AP (F(1,68) = .038, p=.845) directions. During the dynamic postural control task, no significant differences between groups were found in PEV in the ML (F(1,68) = .016, p=.899) or AP (F(1,68) = 3.197, p=.078). In the eyes closed condition, there were no significant differences in CE between groups (F(1,68) = .073, p=.788). The dynamic postural task showed no significance in CE between groups (F(1,68) = .061, p=.806). The ANOVA revealed a significant difference between groups in the eyes open condition (F(1,68) = 5.480, p=.022). No significant differences in SampEn values between groups in the ML (F(1,68) = .107, p=.745) or AP (F(1,68) = 1.548, p=.218) directions in the eyes closed condition. In the eyes open condition, significant differences were found between athletes and non-athletes in both the ML (F(1,68) = 27.651, p < .001) and AP (F(1,68) = 30.714, p < .001) directions. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that athletes are more stable with eyes open during quiet upright stance. However, during a dynamic postural task, which may more closely resemble athletic performance, no differences were observed. These findings suggest that ATH use different postural mechanisms than NON during quiet upright stance with eyes open. This could be due to an enhanced utilization of visual cues as a result of a visually rich training paradigm.