Background: Augmented somatosensory feedback stimulates the mechanoreceptor to deliver information on bodily position, improving the postural control. The various types of such feedback include ankle-foot orthoses (AFOs) and vibration. The optimal feedback to mitigate postural sway remains unclear, as does the effect of augmented somatosensory feedback on muscle co-contraction. Objects: We compared postural sway and ankle muscle co-contraction without feedback (control) and with either of two forms of somatosensory feedback (AFOs and vibration). Methods: We recruited 15 healthy subjects and tested them under three feedback conditions (control, AFOs, vibration) with two sensory conditions (eyes open, or eyes closed and the head tilted back), in random order. Postural sway was measured using a force platform; the mean sway area of the 95% confidence ellipse (AREA) and the mean velocity of the center-of-pressure displacement (VEL) were assessed. Co-contraction of the tibialis anterior and gastrocnemius muscles was measured using electromyography and converted into a cocontraction index (CI). Results: We found significant main effects of the three feedback states on postural sway (AREA, VEL) and the CI. The two sensory conditions exerted significant main effects on postural sway (AREA and VEL). AFOs reduced postural sway to a level significantly lower than that of the control (p = 0.014, p < 0.001) or that afforded by vibration (p = 0.024, p < 0.001). In terms of CI amelioration, the AFOs condition was significantly better than the control (p = 0.004). Vibration did not significantly improve either postural sway or the CI compared to the control condition. There was no significant interaction effect between the three feedback conditions and the two sensory conditions. Conclusion: Lower-extremity devices such as AFOs enhance somatosensory perception, improving postural control and decreasing the CI during static standing.

Background: The bridge exercise targets the gluteus maximus (Gmax) and gluteus medius (Gmed). However, there is also a risk of dominant hamstring (HAM) and erector spinae (ES) muscles. Objects: To analyze the muscle activity the of Gmax, Gmed, HAM and ES during the bridge exercise with and without hip external rotation in different degrees of knee flexion. Methods: Twenty-three subjects were participated. The electormyography (EMG) activity of the Gmax, Gmed, HAM and ES muscles was recorded during the exercise. The subjects performed the bridge exercise under four different conditions: (a) with 90˚ knee flexion, without hip external rotation (b) with 90˚ knee flexion, with hip external rotation (c) with 135˚ knee flexion, without hip external rotation (d) with 135˚ knee flexion, with hip external rotation. Results: There was no significant interaction effect between the degree of knee flexion and hip external rotation. There was a significant main effect for degree of knee flexion in Gmax, HAM muscles activity. Gmax muscle activity was significantly greater in the 135˚ knee flexion position than in the 90˚ knee flexion position (p<.001). While HAM muscle activity was significantly less in 135˚ knee flexion position than in the 90˚ knee flexion position (p<.001). ES muscle activity was significantly less in the 135˚ knee flexion position than in the 90˚ knee flexion position (p=.002). The activity of both the Gmax and Gmed muscles was significantly greater with hip external rotation (p<.001 and p=.005, respectively). Conclusion: For patients performing the bridge exercise, positioning the knee in 135° of flexion with hip external rotation is effective for improving Gmax and Gmed muscle activity while decreasing HAM, and ES muscle activity.