This study aimed to determine the most sensitive objective measures of balance dysfunction that differ between people with Parkinson’s Disease (PD) and healthy controls. One-hundred and forty-four people with PD and 79 age-matched healthy controls wore eight inertial sensors while performing tasks to measure five domains of balance: standing posture (Sway), anticipatory postural adjustments (APAs), automatic postural responses (APRs), dynamic posture (Gait) and limits of stability (LOS). To reduce the initial 93 measures, we selected uncorrelated measures that were most sensitive to PD. After applying a threshold on the Standardized Mean Difference between PD and healthy controls, 44 measures remained; and after reducing highly correlated measures, 24 measures remained. The four most sensitive measures were from APAs and Gait domains. The random forest with 10-fold cross-validation on the remaining measures (n = 24) showed an accuracy to separate PD from healthy controls of 82.4%—identical to result for all measures. Measures from the most sensitive domains, APAs and Gait, were significantly correlated with the severity of disease and with patient-related outcomes. This method greatly reduced the objective measures of balance to the most sensitive for PD, while still capturing four of the five domains of balance.

The benefit of visual feedback of the center of pressure (COP) on quiet standing is still debatable. This study aimed to investigate the adaptation effects of visual feedback training using both the COP and center of gravity (COG) during quiet standing. Thirty-four healthy young adults were divided into three groups randomly (COP + COG, COP, and control groups). A force plate was used to calculate the coordinates of the COP in the anteroposterior (COPAP) and mediolateral (COPML) directions. A motion analysis system was used to calculate the coordinates of the center of mass (COM) in both directions (COMAP and COMML). The coordinates of the COG in the AP direction (COGAP) were obtained from the force plate signals. Augmented visual feedback was presented on a screen in the form of fluctuation circles in the vertical direction that moved upward as the COPAP and/or COGAP moved forward and vice versa. The COP + COG group received the real-time COPAP and COGAP feedback simultaneously, whereas the COP group received the real-time COPAP feedback only. The control group received no visual feedback. In the training session, the COP + COG group was required to maintain an even distance between the COPAP and COGAP and reduce the COGAP fluctuation, whereas the COP group was required to reduce the COPAP fluctuation while standing on a foam pad. In test sessions, participants were instructed to keep their standing posture as quiet as possible on the foam pad before (pre-session) and after (post-session) the training sessions. In the post-session, the velocity and root mean square of COMAP in the COP + COG group were lower than those in the control group. In addition, the absolute value of the sum of the COP − COM distances in the COP + COG group was lower than that in the COP group. Furthermore, positive correlations were found between the COMAP velocity and COP − COM parameters. The results suggest that the novel visual feedback training that incorporates the COPAP–COGAP interaction reduces postural sway better than the training using the COPAP alone during quiet standing. That is, even COPAP fluctuation around the COGAP would be effective in reducing the COMAP velocity.

Integration of visual, vestibular, and proprioceptive sensations contributes to postural control. People with peripheral visual field loss have serious postural instability. However, the directional specificity of postural stability and sensory reweighting caused by gradual peripheral visual field loss remain unclear. What are the effects of peripheral visual field loss on static postural control? Fifteen healthy young adults participated in this study. The participants were asked to stand quietly on a foam surface. Three conditions of virtual visual field loss (90°, 45°, and 15°) were provided by a head-mounted display, and ground reaction forces were collected using a force plate to calculate the displacements of the center of pressure (COP). The root mean square (RMS), mean velocity, and 95% ellipse area of COP displacements in the horizontal plane increased, and RMS in the anteroposterior (AP) direction was unchanged under the smallest visual field condition compared to the largest one. The power spectrum density of COP displacements in the low-frequency band was decreased and that in the medium-frequency band was increased in the AP direction. During quiet standing of young healthy adults with peripheral visual field loss, increased peripheral visual field loss resulted in lower postural stability. Postural stability in the AP direction was maintained contrary to the functional sensitivity hypothesis. Peripheral visual field loss reduced the weighting of the visual input and increased that of the vestibular input in the AP direction to maintain equilibrium.

Augmented sensory biofeedback training is often used to improve postural control. Our previous study showed that continuous auditory biofeedback was more effective than continuous visual biofeedback to improve postural sway while standing. However, it has also been reported that both discrete visual and auditory biofeedback training, presented intermittently, improves bimanual task performance more than continuous visual biofeedback training. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the relative effectiveness of discrete visual biofeedback versus discrete auditory biofeedback to improve postural control. Twenty-two healthy young adults were randomly assigned to either a visual or auditory biofeedback group. Participants were asked to shift their center of pressure (COP) by voluntary postural sway forward and backward in line with a hidden target, which moved in a sinusoidal manner and was displayed intermittently. Participants were asked to decrease the diameter of a visual circle (visual biofeedback) or the volume of a sound (auditory biofeedback) based on the distance between the COP and the target in the training session. The feedback and the target were given only when the target reached the inflection points of the sine curves. In addition, the perceptual magnitudes of visual and auditory biofeedback were equalized using Stevens’ power law. Results showed that the mean and standard deviation of the distance between COP and the target were reduced int the test session, removing the augmented sensory biofeedback, in both biofeedback training groups. However, the temporal domain of the performance improved in the test session in the auditory biofeedback training group, but not in the visual biofeedback training group. In conclusion, discrete auditory biofeedback training was more effective for the motor learning of voluntarily postural swaying compared to discrete visual biofeedback training, especially in the temporal domain.

The dorsal parietal visual system plays an important role in self-motion perception and spatial cognition. It also strongly responds to visual inputs from the lower visual field. Postural control is modified in a process called sensory reweighting based on the reliability of available sensory sources. The question of whether visual stimuli presented to either the lower or upper visual field affect postural control and sensory reweighting has not been resolved. Do visual stimuli presented to the lower and upper visual fields affect postural control and sensory reweighting? Twenty-nine healthy young adults participated in the study. Four conditions (full visual field, upper visual field, lower visual field, and no optic flow condition) were simulated in a VR environment using a head-mounted display. The optic flow stimuli used were swarms of small white spheres originating from the central point of the visual field, moving radially towards the periphery, and expanding across the scene. Participants were instructed to stand quietly for 50 s under each visual condition. Using force plate signals, we measured the center of pressure (COP) signal in the horizontal plane and calculated its 95 % ellipse area, root mean square (RMS) deviations, the mean velocity, and power spectral density (PSD). Optic flow in the full and lower visual fields produced significantly smaller 95 % ellipse area and RMS of COP in the anterior-posterior direction compared to optic flow in the upper visual field. Furthermore, the PSD of the lower frequency band (0-0.3 Hz) was decreased and that of higher frequency bands (0.3-1 Hz and 1-3 Hz) was increased for the lower compared to the upper visual field. Visual feedback affects static postural control more when presented in the lower visual field compared to the upper visual field.