cross-correlations of center of mass and center of pressure displacements reveal multiple balance strategies in response to sinusoidal platform perturbations

compared to static balance, dynamic balance requires a more complex strategy that goes beyond keeping the center of mass (com) within the base of support, as established by the range of foot center of pressure (cop) displacement. instead, neuromechanics must accommodate changing support conditions and inertial effects. therefore, because they represent body's position and changes in applied moments, relative com and cop displacements may also reveal dynamic postural strategies. to investigate this concept, kinetics and kinematics were recorded during three 12 cm, 1.25 hz, sagittal perturbations. forty-one individual trials were classified according to averaged cross-correlation lag between com and cop displacement (lagcom:cop) and relative head-to-ankle displacement (δhead/δankle) using a k-means analysis. this process revealed two dominant patterns, one for which the lagcom:cop was positive (group 1 (n=6)) and another for which it was negative (group 2 (n=5)) . group 1 (g1) absorbed power from the platform over most of the cycle, except during transitions in platform direction. conversely, group 2 (g2) participants applied power to the platform to maintain a larger margin between com and cop position and also had larger knee flexion and ankle dorsiflexion, resulting in a lower stance. by the third repetition, the only kinematic differences were a slightly larger g2 linear knee displacement (p=0.008) and an antiphasic relationship of pelvis (linear) and trunk (angular) displacements. therefore, it is likely that the strategy differences were detected by including cop in the initial screening method, because it reflects the pattern of force application that is not detectable by tracking body movements.