Integrative function of proprioceptive system in the acute effects of whole body vibration on the movement performance in young adults

Abstract

Background: The proprioceptive system coordinates locomotion, but its role in short-term integration and recovery of motor activity in imbalance of motor patterns and body remains debated. The aim of this study is investigating the functional role of proprioceptive system in motor patterns and body balance in healthy young adults.

Methods: 70 participants (aged 20.1 ± 0.3) were divided into experimental groups EG1 (n = 30), EG2 (n = 30), control group (CG, n = 10). EG1 performed single WBV session on Power Plate (7 exercises adapted to Functional Movement Screen (FMS). EG2 performed single session of FMS Exercises (FMSE). CG didn't perform any physical activity. All participants performed pre- and post-session of FMS and stabilometric measurements.

Results: FMS total score in EG1 increased by 2.0 ± 0.2 (p₀ < 0.001), this was significantly differed (p₀ < 0.001) from EG2 and CG. Acute effects of WBV and FMSE on rate of change and standard deviation (SD) of pressure center (COP) were shown in all groups during Static Test (p₀ < 0.01). SD increased (p₀ < 0.01) in Given Setting Test in EG1 and EG2, and in Romberg Test (p₀ < 0.001) in EG1. Length, width and area (p₀ < 0.01) of confidence ellipse, containing 95% of the statokinesiogram points, decreased in Static Test in EG1; width and area (p₀ < 0.01) decreased in EG2 group. Significant (p₀ < 0.01) decrease in Given Setting Test was in EG1, and significant (p₀ < 0.01) increase was in Romberg Test (open eyes) in CG. Maximum amplitude of COP oscillations: significantly (p₀ < 0.01) decreasing along X and Y axes in EG1 and EG2, and along Y axis in CG during Static Test; along Y axis (p₀ < 0.01) in all groups during Given Setting Test. Significant differences were identified (p₀ < 0.01) in calculated energy consumption for COP moving during all stabilometric tests. However, inter-group differences in COP after acute WBV and FMSE sessions have not been identified.

Conclusions: Acute WBV session eliminates the deficits in motor patterns which is not the case after acute FMSE session, which, according to our integrative movement tuning hypothesis, is due to high activation of integrative function of proprioceptive system. Efficacy of WBV and FMSE on COP performance indicates a high sensitivity of postural control to different levels of proprioceptive system activity.

Keywords: acute FMSE; acute WBV; center of pressure; integrative proprioceptive system; motor patterns; postural control; young adults.

Figure 1

Study design.

Figure 2

Marker symbols on the monitor screen for visual biofeedback during stabilometric tests: (A) during the Static test, it was recommended to keep the yellow COP marker within the blue circle on the monitor screen, (B) during the Given Setting test it was recommended to hold the COP color marker on the monitor screen as close as possible to the point of intersection of the X/Y axes.

Figure 3

Examples of оne-side WBV exercises performed on the Power Plate platform. During one WBV session subjects of EG1 perform one exercise in the positions: (A) Deep Squat, (B) Trunk Stability Push-up, (C) Active Straight Leg. Muscle static reflex activities during WBV: Deep Squat—leg muscles; Trunk Stability Push-up—arms, shoulders and pectoralis muscles; Active Straight Leg—back leg stretching. The positions of the exercises correspond as closely as possible to the FMS tests in name and form of execution.

Figure 4

Examples of two-side WBV exercises performed on the Power Plate platform. During one WBV session subjects of EG1 perform one exercise in the positions: (D) In-Line Lung (right/left); (E) Hurdle Step (right/left); (F) Shoulder Mobility, exercise 1 (right/left); (G) Shoulder Mobility, exercise 2 (right/left); (H) Rotary Stability, exercise 1 (right/left); (I) Rotary Stability, exercise 2 (right/left). Muscle static reflex activities during WBV: In-Line Lung—leg and pelvic muscles; Hurdle Step—leg muscles; Shoulder Mobility—arm muscles, shoulder muscle stretch; Shoulder Mobility—arm muscles, shoulder muscle stretch; Rotary Stability—intermuscular coordination, leg, arm, gluteal and back muscles; Rotary Stability—intermuscular coordination, leg, arm, gluteal and back muscles. The positions of the exercises correspond as closely as possible to the FMS tests in name and form of execution.

Figure 5

FMS total score in EG1, EG2 and CG: (A) FMS results at the pre-experimental stage (“Before”) and post- experimental stage (“After” the completing the WBV and FMSE interventions) measured in points; (B) change of the FMS total score at the post-experimental stage (“After”) compared to the pre-experimental stage (“Before”) measured in points. pW, calculated by Wilcoxon Matched Pairs Test (р₀ < 0.001); pM-W, calculated by Mann–Whitney U-Test (р₀ < 0.001).

Figure 6

Change in statokinesiogram parameters in the Static test, mm: (A) before performing a single WBV session; (B) after performing a single WBV session.