Background: As a strategy to maintain postural control, the stiffening strategy (agonist-antagonist co-contractions) is often considered dysfunctional and associated with poor physical capacity. The aim was to investigate whether increased stiffening is associated with unsuccessful postural control during an unpredictable surface perturbation, and which sensory and motor variables that explain postural stiffening.

Methods: A sample of 34 older adults, 75.8 ± 3.8 years, was subjected to an unpredicted surface perturbation with the postural task to keep a feet-in-place strategy. The participants also completed a thorough sensory- and motor test protocol. During the surface perturbation, electromyography was measured from tibialis anterior and gastrocnemius to further calculate a co-contraction index during the feed-forward and feedback period. A binary logistic regression was done with the nominal variable, if the participant succeeded in the postural task or not, set as dependent variable and the co-contraction indexes set as independent variables. Further, the variables from the sensory and motor testing were set as independent variables in two separate Orthogonal Projections of Latent Structures (OPLS)-models, one with the feed-forward- and the other with the feedback co-contraction index as dependent variable.

Results: Higher levels of ankle joint stiffening during the feedback, but not the feed-forward period was associated with postural task failure. Feedback stiffening was explained by having slow non-postural reaction times, poor leg muscle strength and being female whereas feed-forward stiffening was not explained by sensory and motor variables.

Conclusions: When subjected to an unpredicted surface perturbation, individuals with higher feedback stiffening had poorer postural control outcome, which was explained by poorer physical capacity. The level of feed-forward stiffening prior the perturbation was not associated with postural control outcome nor the investigated sensory and motor variables. The intricate causal relationships between physical capacity, stiffening and postural task success remains subject for future research.

As we age there are natural physiological deteriorations that decrease the accuracy and flexibility of the postural control system, which increases the risk of falling. Studies have found that there are individual differences in the ability to learn to manage repeated postural threats. The aim of this study was to investigate which factors explain why some individuals are less proficient at adapting to recurrent postural perturbations. Thirty-five community dwelling older adults performed substantial sensory and motor testing and answered surveys regarding fall-related concerns and cognitive function. They were also subjected to three identical surface perturbations where both kinematics and electromyography was captured. Those that were able to adapt to the third perturbation were assigned to the group “Non-fallers” whereas those that fell during all perturbations were assigned to the group “Fallers”. The group designation dichotomized the sample in a hierarchical orthogonal projection of latent structures— the discriminant analysis model. We found that those who fell were older, had poorer physical performance, poorer strength and longer reaction times. The Fallers’ postural control strategies were more reliant on the stiffening strategy along with a more extended posture and they were less skillful at making appropriate feedforward adaptations prior to the third perturbation.

Background: Postural control is dependent on the central nervous system’s accurate interpretation of sensory information to formulate and execute adequate motor actions. Research has shown that cognitive functions are associated with both postural control and fall risk, but specific associations are not established. The aim of this study was to explore how specific components of everyday postural control tasks are associated with both general and specific cognitive functions.

Methods: Forty-six community-dwelling older adults reported their age, sex, physical activity level, falls and fall-related concerns. The following cognitive aspects were assessed: global cognition, executive functions, processing speed and intraindividual variability. Postural control was quantified by measuring postural sway in quiet stance, walking at a self-selected pace, and walking while performing a concurrent arithmetical task. Separate orthogonal projections of latent structures models were generated for each postural control outcome using descriptive and cognitive variables as explanatory variables.

Results: Longer step length and faster gait speed were related to faster processing speed and less intraindividual variability in the choice reaction test. Moreover, longer step length was also related to less fall-related concerns and less severe fall-related injuries, while faster gait speed was also related to female sex and poorer global cognition. Lower dual-task cost for gait speed was explained by the executive function inhibition and faster processing speed. Postural sway in quiet stance was not explained by cognitive functions.

Conclusions: Cognitive functions explained gait speed and step length during normal walking, as well as the decrease of gait speed while performing a concurrent cognitive task. The results suggest that different cognitive processes are important for different postural control aspects. Postural sway in quiet stance, step time and gait variability seem to depend more on physical and automatic processes rather than higher cognitive functions among physically active older people. The relationships between cognitive functions and postural control likely vary depending on the specific tasks and the characteristics of different populations.