Cognitive processes and a centre-of-pressure error-based moving light-touch biofeedback.

Lightly touching an earth-fixed external surface with the forefinger provides somatosensory information that reduces the center of pressure (CoP) oscillations. If this surface were to move slowly, the central nervous system (CNS) would misinterpret its movement as body self-motion, and involuntary compensatory sway responses would appear, resulting in a significant coupling between finger and CoP motions. We designed a forefinger moving light-touch biofeedback based on this finding, which controls the surface velocity to drive the CoP towards a target position. Here, we investigate this biofeedback resistance to cognitive processes. In addition to a baseline, the experimental protocol includes four main conditions. In the first, participants were utterly naive about the feedback. Then, they received additional reliable sensory information. The third condition ensured their full awareness of the external nature of the surface motion. Finally, the experimenter notified them that the external motion drives their balance and asked them to reject its influence. Our investigation shows that despite the robustness of the proposed biofeedback, light-touch remains penetrable by cognitive processes. For participants to dramatically reduce the existing coupling between the finger and CoP motions, they should be aware of the external motion, how it impacts sway, and actively reject its influence. The main implication of our findings is that light-touch exhibits the same cognitive flexibility as vision when artificially stimulated. This could be interpreted as a defense mechanism to re-weight these two sensory inputs in a moving environment.

Closed-Loop Control of the Centre of Pressure in Post-Stroke Patients With Balance Impairments.

When a lightly touched surface is moved according to a closed-loop control law, it has been shown in young adults that the centre of pressure (CoP) can be displaced in a controllable way without the conscious cooperation of participants. In this closed-loop paradigm, the surface velocity was continuously adjusted according to the CoP position. Since the closed-loop control of the CoP does not require the participant's voluntary cooperation, it could be of interest for the development of innovative biofeedback devices in balance rehabilitation. Before anticipating the implementation of this closed-loop control paradigm with patients, it is necessary to establish its effects on people suffering from balance impairments. The aim of this paper was to assess the effects of this CoP closed-loop control in post-stroke (PS) patients and aged-matched healthy controls. Efficacy of the closed-loop control for driving the patients' CoP was assessed using the saturation time and two scores computing the error between the predefined and the current CoP trajectories. 68% and 83% of the trials were considered as successful in patients and controls, respectively. The global tracking error of the closed-loop score was similar between the two groups. However, when examining the real CoP displacement from the starting position to the desired one, PS patients responded to the closed-loop control to a lesser extent than controls. These results, obtained in the same conditions for healthy and PS individuals could be improved by tuning the closed-loop parameters according to individual characteristics. This paper paves the road towards the development of involuntary/automatic biofeedback techniques in more ecological conditions.