Study of agerelated changes in postural control during quiet standing through Linear Discriminant Analysis
 Guilherme L Cavalheiro^{1},
 Maria Fernanda S Almeida^{1},
 Adriano A Pereira^{1} and
 Adriano O Andrade^{1}Email author
https://doi.org/10.1186/1475925X835
© Cavalheiro et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2009
Received: 3 July 2009
Accepted: 18 November 2009
Published: 18 November 2009
Abstract
Background
The human body adopts a number of strategies to maintain an upright position. The analysis of the human balance allows for the understanding and identification of such strategies. The displacement of the centre of pressure (COP) is a measure that has been successfully employed in studies regarding the postural control. Most of these investigations are related to the analysis of individuals suffering from neuromuscular disorders. Recent studies have shown that the elderly population is growing very fast in many countries all over the world, and therefore, researches that try to understand changes in this group are required. In this context, this study proposes the analysis of the postural control, measured by the displacement of the COP, in groups of young and elderly adults.
Methods
In total 59 subjects participated of this study. They were divided into seven groups according to their age. The displacement of the COP was collected for each subject standing on a force plate. Two experimental conditions, of 30 seconds each, were investigated: opened eyes and closed eyes. Traditional and recent digital signal processing tools were employed for feature computation from the displacement of the COP. Statistical analyses were carried out in order to identify significant differences between the features computed from the distinct groups that could allow for their discrimination.
Results
Our results showed that Linear Discrimination Analysis (LDA), which is one of the most popular feature extraction and classifier design techniques, could be successfully employed as a linear transformation, based on the linear combination of standard features for COP analysis, capable of estimating a unique feature, socalled LDAvalue, from which it was possible to discriminate the investigated groups and show a high correlation between this feature and age.
Conclusion
These results show that the analysis of features computed from the displacement of the COP are of great importance in studies trying to understand the ageing process. In particular, the LDAvalue showed to be an adequate feature for assessment of changes in the postural control which can be related to functional changes that occur over the ageing.
Background
Human beings adopt a number of strategies to maintain its body balance in the upright position. This is an extremely difficult task that demands a complex system, which is responsible to keep the projection of the centre of gravity of the subject over the baseofsupport.
The centre of gravity tends to unbalance the person, who through the visual, somatosensorial and vestibular systems, perceives such disequilibrium and sends signals for the nervous system, that in turn acts on the muscles to modify the position (centre of pressure  COP) and the intensity of the reaction force of the ground under the plant of the feet, being compensated the disequilibrium and making it possible the complicated task to remain in the upright position. As the displacement of the COP reflects the behavior of the corporal segments to maintain itself in balance, this signal has been widely used to study the postural control [1–26].
As part of the ageing process a number of changes occur in the postural control. Some of them are reflected on the displacement of the COP. For this reason it is possible to find a great number of studies that compare the postural control of young and elderly adults [1, 2, 4–7, 9, 10, 12–14, 16, 17, 19–23, 25, 26]. Very often they employ a force plate to measure the displacement of the COP, resulting in a signal in the AnteroPosterior axis (AP) and another in the MediumLateral axis (ML). The resulting trajectory (RD) of these two axes may be used as a complementary information in the analysis [1, 4–7, 12, 21].
Several types of methods are used to analyze the displacement of the COP. Some of them employ traditional tools, such as the total displacement, mean velocity, RMS value, mean frequency and the confidence ellipse area [13, 14, 16, 19, 21]. Others use mathematical techniques from statistical mechanics, assuming that the displacement of the COP is a random process [1, 2, 4–7, 9, 10, 17, 19, 20, 22], for instance, the Stabilogram Diffusion Analysis (SDA), Detrended Fluctuation Analysis (DFA) and Analysis R/S.
Although it is possible to find a number of studies in this area, there is a lack of investigations that seek features computed from the displacement of the COP that may reflect changes in the postural control over the ageing. In this context this study investigates how traditional and recent tools for feature estimate can be employed to investigate the correlation of changes in the displacement of the COP over the ageing.
Methods
In total 59 healthy subjects (i.e., without clinical evidence or history of suffering from any neuromuscular disorder, as assessed by a seasoned neurologist) participated in the experiments.
All subjects gave their informed consent prior to participation in the study, which was approved by the Ethical Committee of the Federal University of Uberlândia  Brazil.
The subjects were classified into the following groups according to their ages, where N is the number of subjects within the group:

Group 1 (N = 10; 20 to 29 years old);

Group 2 (N = 10; 30 to 39 years old);

Group 3 (N = 8; 40 to 49 years old);

Group 4 (N = 10; 50 to 59 years old);

Group 5 (N = 9; 60 to 69 years old);

Group 6 (N = 8; 70 to 79 years old);

Group 7 (N = 4; 80 to 89 years old).
The displacement of the COP was recorded by a commercial force plate (BioDynamicsBr model of the DataHominis company). The sampling frequency was set to 150 Hz. The collected signal was filtered by using a lowpass filter with cutoff frequency of 30 Hz.
During the recordings, the subject remained for 30 seconds on the force plate in the upright position, with the arms on the laterals of the body, with the feet forming an angle of 20 degrees and the heels moved away from 2 cm. This procedure was performed 3 times for each condition (i.e., opened eyes and closed eyes). Each subject was asked to minimize the postural sway and, during the openedeye condition, to stare at a fixed point at 2 m from his eyes.
In order to compute features from the displacement of the COP traditional tools (mean velocity, total displacement, RMS value, range, frequency domain features and Confidence Ellipse) and mathematical techniques from statistical mechanics (DFA, SDA, Analysis R/S and Approximate Entropy) were employed. These techniques are described in the next section.
Each feature computation technique was applied for the signals of the two axes, ML and AP, and for the two conditions, i.e., opened eyes and closed eyes.
For each subject, it was calculated the mean value of each feature, obtained from the three repetitions for each experimental condition (CE, OE).
For each feature, it was applied the analysis of variance (ANOVA) in order to verify whether there exist statistical significant differences between the young (formed by groups 1 and 2) and elderly groups (formed by groups 6 and 7). These groups were defined based on previous studies carried out in the area [1, 2, 4–7, 9, 10, 12–14, 16, 17, 19–23, 25, 26]. A probability value (pvalue) less than 0.05 was an indicative of significant differences between the two groups.
In order to investigate a possible correlation between age and the computed features we estimated the Pearson's correlation coefficient (r) and the correspondent pvalue. Note that we took into account all subjects from groups of 1 to 7 in this analysis. Furthermore, we also studied possible correlation between distinct features. When we obtained r > 0.9 we considered a strong correlation between the variables.
As no computed feature from the displacement of the COP yielded a discrimination of the seven groups, the LDA technique was used to estimate a single feature, socalled LDAvalue, which was a combination of all computed features from the displacement of the COP. The correlation between the LDAvalue with age through the Pearson's correlation coefficient, and the potential of the LDAvalue as a discriminative feature capable of characterizing groups from 1 to 7 was investigated.
Description of the features
For all features described in this section, d_{ cop }is the signal of the displacement of the COP, N is the total number of samples and T is the sampling period.
Mean velocity
Total displacement
Root mean square
Range
Frequency domain features
The frequency domain features were obtained from the power spectrum, S_{ x }, of the signal, which was estimated through the Fourier Transform and f is the frequency vector of the S_{ x }.
Confidence ellipse
Detrended fluctuation analysis (DFA)
DFA is a tool for analysis of random signals that estimates the α exponent which may characterize the nature of the timeseries [1, 9, 19].
A behavior F(τ) ~ τ^{ α }is expected, where the characteristic exponent (α) can be extracted through the inclination of the straight line in the graph log(F(τ)) vs log(τ).
An exponent (α) lesser than 0.5 characterizes an antipersistent signal; α greater than 0.5 characterizes a persistent signal; and a white noise has a exponent (α) equal to 0.5.
Stabilogram diffusion analysis (SDA)
The graph vs Δt generally shows two distinct linear regions (shortterm and longterm), and each region is characterized by: a diffusion coefficient (D), that can be obtained from the graph through the expression = 2D Δt; a scaling exponent (H), obtained through the expression ∝ Δt^{2H}; and a critical point that divides the graph into two regions (the long and short term).
Analysis R/S (Hurst exponent)
This analysis was defined by Hurst [9, 19] to detect the "persistence" or long term memory in time series. The procedure is described below.
Thus, for each value of τ, the value of R( τ )/S(τ) is calculated. It is expected the behavior R(τ)/S(τ) ~ τ^{Hr/s}, where the exponent H_{R/S}can be extracted through the inclination of the straight line on the graph log(R/S) vs. log(τ). In general the exponent can vary from 0 to 1. If 0.5 <H_{R/S}≤ 1, the time series is persistent, with effects of long term memory. If H_{R/S}< 0.5, the time series is antipersistent, and a white noise is represented by H_{R/S}= 0.5.
Approximate entropy
Approximate entropy (ApEn) is a tool used to quantify the regularity of a signal [27], returning a value between 0 and 2, where 0 represent a predictable signal through its previous samples, like a sinusoidal signal, and a value close to 2 represents an unpredictable signal, such as a white noise.
In order to calculate the approximate entropy of the time series d_{ cop }is necessary to select values for the parameters m (length of a pattern) and r (criterion of similarity or tolerance of comparison). If a signal window of m samples beginning at sample i is denoted by p_{ m }(i), then two patterns p_{ m }(i) and p_{ m }(j) will be similar if the difference between any pair of corresponding measures of the patterns is less than r, therefore [d_{ cop }(i+k)  d_{ cop }(j+k)]<r, for 0 ≤ k < m.
The approximate entropy (ApEn) measures the similarity between patterns with lengths m and m+1. This technique was applied to the displacement of the COP with a value of m (window length) equal to 2 and r (tolerance) equal to 0.2SD(d_{ cop }), where 0.2SD(d_{ cop }) is the standard deviation of d_{ cop }, as suggested by Pincus [27].
Linear Discriminant Analysis (LDA)
The LDA is a known method for data classification and dimensional reduction. Through this method it is possible to project a multidimensional data set in only one dimension, resulting in a single feature [28–30].
In this study, we used the LDA to verify whether the combination of the computed features from the displacement of the COP could discriminate the seven groups in analysis. For each subject a pattern vector was created by grouping all computed features from the displacement of the COP, and the LDA was applied for dimension reduction. The pattern vector, v_{n}, was a 82D feature vector, where each element of this vector corresponds to a computed feature from the displacement of the COP, i.e., each subject has in total 82 computed feature from the displacement of the COP, considering the three COP directions (AP, ML and RD) and the two visual conditions (OE and CE).
In order to ease the data processing, the values of each feature of the feature vector were normalized between 0 and 1. An offset of 0.1 was added to the normalized vector for avoiding division by zero during the application of the signal processing stages.
Each feature from the pattern vector is represented by a Cartesian axis. Consequently, each subject will be represented by a point in this multidimensional space.
The next step of the signal processing is to reduce the multidimensional space into a onedimensional space. The procedure of dimensional reduction consists of the rotation of an axis that is created imaginarily in the multidimensional space. With the rotation of the imaginary axis, became possible to verify in which position of this axis the projections of all points (i.e., all subjects) will provide the best discrimination of the seven groups.
It is important to note that an increase in the number of features to be analyzed increases the processing time significantly for each added feature, because of the amount of possible positions that may be assumed by the imaginary axis.
In this way, to process the data in a feasible time, a genetic algorithm was implemented to control the positions of the imaginary axis in the space. As the genetic algorithm [28, 30] is a tool of fast search, it will find an angle of rotation optimized in a reduced time.
With the analysis of the projection of all the points on the imaginary axis, we can observe that the space, previously multidimensional, could be reduced for just one dimension, from where each subject will be represented by only one value (i.e., feature), that corresponds to their projection on the imaginary axis. Through this new value, socalled LDAvalue, we can verify the degree of discrimination among the groups.
This estimator is an efficient statistical tool and it is responsible to indicate if one given feature is capable to discriminate the two groups in analysis, i.e., if there is a significant difference between them. The larger the value of E, the better will be the discrimination between the groups. If the estimator E results in a value larger than 1 (one), it can be concluded that the feature in analysis is capable of differentiating the groups.
To calculate the degree of discrimination among all groups, the value of E for each pair of existing groups was calculated, and then, the sum of these values resulted in a final value that characterizes the separation between all existing groups.
After the estimation of the best position of the imaginary axis, it was carried out the calculation of the relevance of each feature to the LDAvalue. This calculation consists in the elimination of one feature to check the impact of it on the final discrimination of the groups. In such a way, the features that had an insignificant impact (i.e., relevance less than 1% of the accuracy estimator E) on the final discrimination of the groups were excluded from the analysis.
Results
Young group versus elderly group
Characterization of the subjects from the young and elderly groups.
Young Adult (Groups 1 and 2)  Elderly Adult (Groups 6 and 7)  

Age (years)  29.4 ± 4.93  77.83 ± 3.97 
Age range (years)  21 to 39  73 to 87 
Number of subjects  20  12 
Analysis of the computed features from the displacement of the COP.
Young Adult (Groups 1 and 2)  Elderly Adult (Groups 6 and 7)  ANOVA pvalue  Correlation with age  Correlation Groups  

Features  OE  CE  OE  CE  OE  CE  OE  CE  
Mean Velocity  6.15  9.45  8.27  14.52  <  r = 0.3  r = 0.28  
Ap (mm/s) *  ± 1.32  ± 3.08  ± 3.69  ± 10.74  0.03  A  
Mean Velocity  5.40  7.54  7.14  12.91  <  <  r = 0.25  r = 0.29  
Ml (mm/s) *  ± 1.05  ± 2.77  ± 3.35  ± 9.15  0.04  0.02  B  
Mean Velocity  9.11  13.45  12.12  21.55  <  <  r = 0.29  r = 0.29  
RD (mm/s) *  ± 1.59  ± 4.05  ± 5.43  ± 15.63  0.03  0.04  C  
Range  21.10  27.84  18.62  27.90  r = 0.03  r = 0.07  
Ap (mm)  ± 5.57  ± 8.03  ± 4.74  ± 10.80  D  
Range  19.80  21.59  20.37  24.53  r = 0.05  r = 0.02  
Ml (mm)  ± 6.40  ± 7.32  ± 7.98  ± 10.43  E  
Displacement  230.6  320.0  299.3  500.2  <  <  r = 0.27  r = 0.28  
Ap (mm) *  ± 47.7  ± 90.7  ± 118.8  ± 369.2  0.03  0.05  A  
Displacement  171.4  235.8  229.4  414.7  <  <  r = 0.28  r = 0.3  
Ml (mm) *  ± 30.8  ± 81.6  ± 102.1  ± 300.6  0.03  0.02  B  
Displacement  273.4  403.6  363.7  646.7  <  <  r = 0.29  r = 0.29  
RD (mm) *  ± 47.6  ± 121.4  ± 163.0  ± 469.2  0.03  0.04  C  
RMS  4.52  5.74  3.60  4.91  r = 0.42  r = 0.48  
Ap (mm)  ± 1.52  ± 1.82  ± 0.94  ± 1.95  p < 0.01  p < 0.001  F  
RMS  4.04  4.27  3.79  4.57  r = 0.33  r = 0.44  
Ml (mm)  ± 1.39  ± 1.47  ± 1.22  ± 1.82  p < 0.001  G  
Mean Freq.  0.21  0.25  0.33  0.42  <  <  r = 0.41  r = 0.51  
Ap (Hz) *  ± 0.06  ± 0.07  ± 0.16  ± 0.19  0.01  0.001  p < 0.01  p < 0.001  F, H 
Mean Freq.  0.22  0.28  0.30  0.41  <  <  r = 0.34  r = 0.46  
Ml (Hz) *  ± 0.07  ± 0.06  ± 0.08  ± 0.12  0.01  0.001  p < 0.01  p < 0.001  G, I 
Peak Freq.  0.05  0.08  0.09  0.19  r = 0.27  r = 0.28  
Ap (Hz)  ± 0.03  ± 0.06  ± 0.07  ± 0.24  
Peak Freq.  0.06  0.10  0.07  0.15  r = 0.13  r = 0.25  
Ml (Hz)  ± 0.03  ± 0.07  ± 0.05  ± 0.09  
F50  0.083  0.13  0.20  0.27  <  <  r = 0.43  r = 0.48  
Ap (Hz) *  ± 0.03  ± 0.05  ± 0.14  ± 0.18  0.01  0.01  p < 0.001  p < 0.001  H 
F50  0.11  0.16  0.17  0.28  <  <  r = 0.28  r = 0.45  
Ml (Hz) *  ± 0.05  ± 0.05  ± 0.10  ± 0.12  0.04  0.001  p < 0.001  I  
F80  0.25  0.34  0.46  0.63  <  <  r = 0.29  r = 0.22  
Ap (Hz) *  ± 0.11  ± 0.12  ± 0.26  ± 0.33  0.01  0.001  D  
F80  0.30  0.36  0.40  0.59  <  <  r = 0.14  r = 0.05  
Ml (Hz) *  ± 0.11  ± 0.08  ± 0.14  ± 0.23  0.03  0.001  E  
Total Power  23.99  38.40  14.35  28.14  r = 0.28  r = 0.2  
Ap  ± 17.88  ± 25.04  ± 7.44  ± 23.95  D  
Total Power  19.20  21.44  16.44  24.57  r = 0.16  r = 0.05  
Ml  ± 12.80  ± 14.53  ± 10.54  ± 19.45  E  
Conf. Ellipse  223.0  325.5  172.6  305.3  r = 0.23  r = 0.14  
area (mm^{2})  ± 128.9  ± 210.4  ± 93.0  ± 249.5  J  
Conf. Ellipse  10.77  12.29  8.79  11.02  r = 0.31  r = 0.2  
major axis (mm)  ± 3.29  ± 3.69  ± 2.48  ± 4.11  D, J  
Conf. Ellipse  1.97  1.78  2.16  2.20  <  r = 0.09  r = 0.31  
angle (rad)*  ± 0.38  ± 0.36  ± 0.58  ± 0.40  0.01  
SDA  Ds  0.13  0.33  0.21  0.69  r = 0.21  r = 0.24  
Ap  ± 0.06  ± 0.21  ± 0.18  ± 0.89  A  
SDA  Ds  0.12  0.23  0.21  0.58  <  <  r = 0.26  r = 0.3  
Ml *  ± 0.04  ± 0.16  ± 0.17  ± 0.57  0.04  0.01  B  
SDA  Dl  0.05  0.05  0.02  0.02  <  r = 0.27  r = 0.23  
Ap *  ± 0.04  ± 0.05  ± 0.02  ± 0.04  0.04  
SDA  Dl  0.03  0.02  0.02  0.02  r = 0.16  r = 0.09  
Ml  ± 0.02  ± 0.03  ± 0.02  ± 0.02  
SDA  Hs  1.81  1.78  1.74  1.76  <  r = 0.31  r = 0.16  
Ap *  ± 0.06  ± 0.04  ± 0.08  ± 0.06  0.01  
SDA  Hs  1.80  1.77  1.77  1.78  r = 0.11  r = 0.03  
Ml  ± 0.05  ± 0.05  ± 0.05  ± 0.06  
SDA  Hl  0.64  0.44  0.32  0.23  <  <  r = 0.44  r = 0.44  
Ap *  ± 0.22  ± 0.19  ± 0.24  ± 0.17  0.001  0.01  p < 0.001  p < 0.001  
SDA  Hl  0.44  0.30  0.33  0.21  r = 0.23  r = 0.18  
Ml  ± 0.20  ± 0.13  ± 0.17  ± 0.13  
SDAcritical time  1.08  1.31  1.04  0.95  <  r = 0.1  r = 0.38  
Ap (s) *  ± 0.51  ± 0.31  ± 0.41  ± 0.42  0.01  p < 0.01  
SDAcritical time  1.43  1.28  1.25  0.98  <  r = 0.19  r = 0.38  
Ml (s) *  ± 0.78  ± 0.33  ± 0.32  ± 0.27  0.01  p < 0.01  
SDA (mm^{2})  0.16  0.41  0.17  0.43  r = 0.03  r = 0.02  
critical mag.Ap  ± 0.14  ± 0.27  ± 0.09  ± 0.31  
SDA (mm^{2})  0.21  0.30  0.21  0.38  r = 0.08  r = 0.01  
critical mag.Ml  ± 0.18  ± 0.22  ± 0.13  ± 0.27  
DFA  α  1.43  1.57  1.49  1.62  r = 0.16  r = 0.12  
Ap  ± 0.09  ± 0.09  ± 0.13  ± 0.16  
DFA  α  1.72  1.78  1.70  1.81  r = 0.09  r = 0.01  
Ml  ± 0.06  ± 0.09  ± 0.12  ± 0.12  
H _{R/S}  0.97  1.01  0.99  1.02  r = 0.2  r = 0.04  
Ap  ± 0.04  ± 0.02  ± 0.03  ± 0.02  
H _{R/S}  1.03  1.03  1.02  1.03  r = 0.09  r = 0.01  
Ml  ± 0.004  ± 0.005  ± 0.01  ± 0.01  
ApEn  0.008  0.008  0.010  0.012  <  <  r = 0.24  r = 0.43  
Ap *  ± 0.002  ± 0.002  ± 0.003  ± 0.005  0.05  0.01  p < 0.001  
ApEn  0.007  0.009  0.008  0.011  <  r = 0.14  r = 0.29  
Ml *  ± 0.002  ± 0.002  ± 0.002  ± 0.003  0.01 
From the analysis of Table 2 it is possible to conclude that the features that provided a significant difference between the two groups, for the OE and CE conditions, are: mean velocity (ML and RD), total displacement (AP, ML and RD), mean frequency (AP and ML), F50 (AP and ML), F80 (AP and ML), Ds (ML), Hl (AP) and ApEn (AP). The values of mean velocity (AP), Dl (AP) and Hs (AP) provided only significant differences for the OE condition, whereas the values of critical time (AP and ML), angle (RD) and ApEn (ML) provided significant differences only for the CE condition.
Although some features (mean frequency (AP and ML), F50 (AP and ML), Hl (AP), critical time (AP and ML) and ApEn (AP)) had significant correlation with age, none had an rvalue larger than 0.5, indicating that these features are weakly correlated with age. Furthermore, none of these features were able to discriminate the seven groups.
Moreover, we identified groups of features whose correlation estimated by the Pearson's correlation was larger than 0.9. Such features carry practically the same information, since they are highly correlated, and they are listed below:

Group A: mean velocity (AP), total displacement (AP), Ds (AP).

Group B: mean velocity (ML), total displacement (ML), Ds (ML).

Group C: mean velocity (RD), total displacement (RD).

Group D: range (AP), F80 (AP), total power (AP), major axis (RD).

Group E: range (ML), F80 (ML), total power (ML).

Group F: mean frequency (AP), RMS (AP).

Group G: mean frequency (ML), RMS (ML).

Group H: mean frequency (AP), F50 (AP).

Group I: mean frequency (ML), F50 (ML).

Group J: major axis (RD), area (RD).
Results from the Linear Discrimination Analysis
Features that have some influence on the LDAvalue.
AP axis  ML axis  RD axis  

Measures  OE  CE  OE  CE  OE  CE 
mean velocity  (b)  (a)  
total displacement  (H)  (I)  (G)  (e)  
range  (d)  (c)  
mean frequency  (g)  (i)  (f)  (h)  
peak frequency  (k)  (j)  (l)  
F80  (m)  (n)  
RMS  (o)  (p)  
Ellipse  major axis  (q)  
Ellipse  angle  (r)  (s)  
SDA  Dl  (t)  (u)  
SDA  Hs  (v)  
SDA  Hl  (x)  
SDA  critical time  (y)  (w)  
SDA  critical magnitude  (A)  (z)  
DFA  α  (B)  
ApEn  (E)  (C)  (D)  
H _{R/S}  (F) 
pvalues of ANOVA test for the LDAvalue for the seven groups.
Group 1  Group 2  Group 3  Group 4  Group 5  Group 6  

Group 1  x  
Group 2  <0.01  x  
Group 3  < 10^{4}  <0.001  x  
Group 4  < 10^{5}  < 10^{5}  <0.01  x  
Group 5  < 10^{7}  < 10^{7}  < 10^{4}  <0.01  x  
Group 6  < 10^{7}  < 10^{7}  < 10^{5}  <0.001  <0.01  x 
Group 7  < 10^{7}  < 10^{7}  < 10^{7}  < 10^{6}  < 10^{5}  <0.05 
When estimating the correlation between the LDAvalue and the age of the subjects, we obtained a Pearson's correlation coefficient equal to 0.914, indicating the high degree of correlation between the LDAvalue and the age of the subjects.
Discussion
From Table 2 we can verify some features of the displacement of the COP that differentiate the young group from elderly group. These features show that the strategy of postural control, and consequently the displacement of the COP, changes between the groups. From the results we can note an increase in the mean velocity of the displacement of the COP in the elderly group, and also that the amplitude of the displacement of the COP remains constant (i.e., there is no changes in the values of range, area of ellipse and RMS value). This causes an increase in the total displacement and in the frequency of oscillation (mean frequency, F50 and F80) of the COP. Moreover, the displacement of the COP has a larger value of ApEn for the elderly group, showing that this signal becomes more unpredictable, having also a greater degree of randomness.
In general, the results obtained from Table 2 are in accordance with the results from other research groups [1, 2, 7, 12, 16, 19, 21, 25, 26], with a few exceptions. In our study, the coefficients of DFA (α) and Analysis R/S (H) did not allow a significant difference between the groups as shown in Table 2. This is not in accordance with the results obtained from Norris et al., 2005 [19]. Moreover, the values of the peak frequency, contrary to results published by McClenaghan et al., 1995 [14], did not result in a significant difference between the groups. However, the probability values (pvalue) of the ANOVA test of these features were close to the acceptance threshold (pvalue ≈ 0.05). Therefore, it can be hypothesized that if the number of subjects increases, probably these features could yield a significant difference between the groups.
As in other studies [21, 25], the results from Table 2 show that many traditional features seem to provide the same information, due to the high correlation between them, however, they differ in the fact that some are able to differentiate the young from elderly group and others not.
The DFA analysis did not provide significant differences between the two groups as shown in Table 2. However the value of α close to 1.5 characterized the displacement of the COP as a Brownian motion, or also known as random walk motion, which is in accordance with Collins and De Luca and other works [1, 2, 4–7, 9, 10, 17, 19, 20, 22].
Although Table 2 shows some features that are significantly different in the young and elderly groups, none of them provided significant difference among the seven groups and a strong correlation with age. Vieira TdMM et al., 2008 [26] found similar results, concluding that ageing itself does not result in significant changes of postural stability.
Contrary to many researches in the area [1, 2, 4–7, 9, 10, 12–14, 16, 17, 19–23, 25, 26], which only take into account two main groups (young and elderly) in their analysis, this study investigated seven distinct groups, allowing for a better characterization of changes that happen over the ageing. In addition, we noted from our results that commonly used features for COP analysis are not capable of providing clear correlations between these features and age for the seven studied groups. This was the main motivation for looking for alternative approaches, such as Linear Discriminant Analysis.
Through the Linear Discriminant Analysis, it was possible to combine the various features of the displacement of the COP in a unique feature, socalled LDAvalue, whose value was able to separate and classify the seven groups, as can be observed in Figure 1. The LDAvalue, as showed in Figure 2, has approximately a linear relationship with the age of the subjects, having a high Pearson's correlation coefficient (r = 0.914).
The results allowed us to verify that the LDAvalue is a relevant feature for COP analysis, with potential application in a number of correlated studies in areas such as Physiotherapy, Neurology, Geriatrics and others. As the LDAvalue showed to be linearly correlated with age for the group of healthy subjects, it is possible that this relation is not valid for patients with some disorders that deteriorate the postural control. In this case this parameter could potentially be employed for the diagnosis of some of these disorders. For instance, this parameter can be used for the characterization and monitoring of the progress of some neurological disorders that affect the postural control, such as peripheral vestibular syndromes.
Furthermore, the Linear Discriminant Analysis in this study can be extended by adding other features of the displacement of the COP that have not been used in this study, i.e., future studies may add other important features for the analysis of postural control, increasing the power of analysis of the LDAvalue.
Conclusion
This research showed a new method to analyze the postural control through the displacement of the COP. The LDAvalue was effective in the discrimination of the seven groups, with a high degree of correlation with age of the subjects (r > 0.9).
As the LDAvalue has a linear trend with the age of the subjects, it may have great importance in future researches. In this study we only considered the analysis of healthy subjects, but further investigations should be carried out in order to verify the behavior of the LDAvalue in groups of subjects that had some disorders that deteriorate the postural control.
Declarations
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the Brazilian government for supporting this study (Project PPSUS/FAPEMIG 2006 Nr. 3300/06).
Authors’ Affiliations
References
 Amoud H, Abadi M, Hewson DJ, MichelPellegrino V, Doussot M, Duchene J: Fractal time series analysis of postural stability in elderly and control subjects. Journal of Neuroengineering and Rehabilitation 2007, 4: 12. 10.1186/17430003412View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Bosek M, Grzegorzewski B, Kowalczyk A, Lubinski I: Degradation of postural control system as a consequence of Parkinson's disease and ageing. Neuroscience Letters 2005, 376: 215–220. 10.1016/j.neulet.2004.11.056View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Chow CC, Lauk M, Collins JJ: The dynamics of quasistatic posture control. Human Movement Science 1999, 18: 725–740. 10.1016/S01679457(99)000354View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Collins JJ, Luca CJ: Openloop and closedloop control of posture: A randomwalk analysis of centerofpressure trajectories. Experimental Brain Research 1993, 95: 308–318. 10.1007/BF00229788View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Collins JJ, Luca CJ: Upright. correlated random walks: a statisticalbiomechanics approach to the human postural control system. CHAOS 1995, 5: 57–63. 10.1063/1.166086View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Collins JJ, Luca CJ: The effects of visual input on openloop and closedloop postural control mechanisms. Experimental Brain Research 1995, 103: 151–163. 10.1007/BF00241972View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Collins JJ, Luca CJ, Burrows A, Lipsitz LA: Agerelated changes in openloop and closedloop postural control mechanisms. Experimental Brain Research 1995, 104: 480–492. 10.1007/BF00231982View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Collins JJ, Luca CJD: Random walking during quiet standing. Phys Rev Lett 1994, 73: 764–767. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.73.764View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Delignieres D, Deschamps T, Legros A, Caillou N: A methodological note on nonlinear time series analysis: Is the open and closedloop model of Collins and De Luca (1993) a statistical artifact? Journal of Motor Behavior 2003, 35: 86–96.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Duarte M, Zatsiorsky VM: On the fractal properties of natural human standing. Neuroscience Letters 2000, 283: 173–176. 10.1016/S03043940(00)009605View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 HsiaoWecksler ET, Katdare K, Matson J, Liu W, Lipsitz LA, Collins JJ: Predicting the dynamic postural control response from quietstance behavior in elderly adults. Journal of Biomechanics 2003, 36: 1327–1333. 10.1016/S00219290(03)001532View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Kollegger H, Baumgartner C, Wöber C, Oder W, Deecke L: Spontaneous Body Sway as a Function of Sex, Age, and Vision: Posturographic Study in 30 Healthy Adults. European Neurology 1992, 32: 253–259. 10.1159/000116836View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Maki BE, Holliday PJ, Topper AK: A ProspectiveStudy of Postural Balance and Risk of Falling in an Ambulatory and Independent Elderly Population. Journals of Gerontology 1994, 49: M72M84.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 McClenaghan BA, Williams HG, Dickerson J, Dowda M, Thombs L, Eleazer P: Spectral characteristics of ageing postural control. Gait & Posture 1995, 3: 123–131. 10.1016/09666362(95)99062PView ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Mitchell SL, Collin JJ, De Luca CJ, Burrows A, Lipsitz LA: Openloop and closedloop postural control mechanisms in Parkinson's disease: increased mediolateral activity during quiet standing. Neuroscience Letters 1995, 197: 133–136. 10.1016/03043940(95)11924LView ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Nagy E, FeherKiss A, Barnai M, DomjánPreszner A, Angyan L, Horvath G: Postural control in elderly subjects participating in balance training. European Journal of Applied Physiology 2007, 100: 97–104. 10.1007/s004210070407xView ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Newell K, Slobounov S, Slobounova E, Molenaar P: Stochastic processes in postural centerofpressure profiles. Experimental Brain Research 1997, 113: 158–164. 10.1007/BF02454152View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Nolan L, Grigorenko A, Thorstensson A: Balance control: sex and age differences in 9 to 16yearolds. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology 2005, 47: 449–454. 10.1017/S0012162205000873View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Norris JA, Marsh AP, Smith IJ, Kohut RI, Miller ME: Ability of static and statistical mechanics posturographic measures to distinguish between age and fall risk. Journal of Biomechanics 2005, 38: 1263–1272. 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2004.06.014View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Peterka RJ: Postural control model interpretation of stabilogram diffusion analysis. Biological Cybernetics 2000, 82: 335–343. 10.1007/s004220050587View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Prieto TE, Myklebust JB, Hoffmann RG, Lovett EG, Myklebust BM: Measures of Postural Steadiness: Differences Between Healthy Young and Elderly Adults. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering 1996, 43: 9. 10.1109/10.532130View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Riley MA, Wong S, Mitra S, Turvey MT: Common effects of touch and vision on postural parameters. Experimental Brain Research 1997, 117: 165–170. 10.1007/s002210050211View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Winter DA, Prince F, Frank JS, Powell C, Zabjek KF: Unified theory regarding A/P and M/L balance in quiet stance. Journal of Neurophysiology 1996, 75: 2334–2343.Google Scholar
 Blaszczyk JW: Sway ratio  a new measure for quantifying postural stability. Acta Neurobiologiae Experimentalis 2008, 68: 51–57.Google Scholar
 Raymakers JA, Samson MM, Verhaar HJJ: The assessment of body sway and the choice of the stability parameter(s). Gait & Posture 2005, 21: 48–58. 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2003.11.006View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Vieira TdMM, Oliveira LFd, Nadal J: An overview of agerelated changes in postural control during quiet standing tasks using classical and modern stabilometric descriptors. Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology 2008, 19: e513e519. 10.1016/j.jelekin.2008.10.007View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Pincus SM: Approximate entropy as a measure of system complexity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 1991, 88: 2297–2301. 10.1073/pnas.88.6.2297MATHMathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Back B, Laitinen T, Sere K, Wezel Mv: Choosing bankruptcy predictors using discriminant analysis, logit analysis and genetic algorithms. Turku Centre for Computer Science Technical Report No 40 1996, 1–18.Google Scholar
 Guimarães A, Moreira TBS: Previsão de insolvência: um modelo baseado em índices contábeis com utilização da análise discriminante. Revista de Economia Contemporânea 2008, 12: 151–178. 10.1590/S141598482008000100006View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Shin KS, Lee YJ: A genetic algorithm application in bankruptcy prediction modeling. Expert Systems with Applications 2002, 23: 321–328. 10.1016/S09574174(02)000519View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Copyright
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.