Neurocom Equitest Motor Control Latency Measurement

Supplied by Amy Fu, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University

Technical Details

One of the test protocols of the Neurocom Equitest computerized dynamic posturography system is the so-called Motor Control Test (MCT). In this test, the subject stands on a base consisting of two force platforms. Each platform has two load cells under the front and rear of the foot, and there is a common shear transducer. The platform can be made to suddenly translate a few cm forwards or backwards, so that the subject experiences an unexpected perturbation to stance.

In posterior translation, the force caused by the plate movement is recorded by the platform shear transducer. The subject is thrown forwards (dorsiflexed at the ankle), such that more load is taken by the front (toe) load cells. The subject responds by contracting the plantarflexor muscles (triceps surae) in order to generate a plantarflexor moment to restore stability. In an anterior, or forward, platform translation, the reverse happens, with the anterior tibials (dorsiflexors) being used to restore stability.

A typical posterior translation is shown in fig. 1. The left and right ankle moment are derived by from the difference between the front and rear load cells under each foot.The first deflection of the shear curve indicates the start of the platform translation. Note that the moment curves simultaneously rise, as body weight is thrust forwards. At a certain point, however, the gradient of the moment curves suddenly increases. This point is said to indicate the motor response of the plantarflexors, and the time difference between this point and the initiation of platfrom translation is taken to be the Motor Latency of the plantarflexors and their associated neural drive.

In a forward translation, the same happens with the moment curves reversed (fig. 2). In this case the latency refers to the latency of the dorsiflexors and associated motor control circuitry.

The Equitest software differentiates the moment curves in order to locate the point at which the gradient changes abruptly, and reports this point as the motor latency. The manufacturer claims that this biomechanical latency is preceded by the electromyographic latency of the muscle by about 50 ms. Since it does not involve measuring EMG, the test is potentially a much easier and more reliable method for determining motor latency.


  • Does the point of sudden increased gradient in the moment curve actually represent the onset of restorative muscle activity?
  • If so, can you explain how, using a free body diagram of the foot segment?
  • What assumptions are being made?
  • Can acceleration terms be neglected?

  • What we said on the CGA list

    Email your comments or questions to [n/a]

    Last modified on 14-August-97.