Skip to content

Huber Kleindl 2010

A Case Study on Balance Recovery in Slacklining

Tags: #slackline #dynamic_balance #control

Related: [[Balancing on Slacklines Modeling and Empirical Evaluation - Vallery Neumann 2013]] [[Improved postural control after slackline training is accompanied by reduced H-reflexes - Keller Et. Al. 2011]]

Key Definitions

Key Takeaways

  1. Experimental design involved a 6.9m slackline with 4kN of tension, that was deflected 0.53m. The subjects found their balance, then the deflection was released and they attempted to regain their balance
    1. 4 subjects did 5 trials each recorded with a Vicon motion capture system (12 cameras, 100 Hz)
    2. The subject had 55 markers, 12 were placed on the line, and a 3d accelerometer was also on the line.
  2. Half of the athletes balanced with one foot on the line prior to the disturbance, the other half with 2 feet.
  3. Once the disturbance occurs, the subject rotates their whole body and the line goes through several oscillations before returning to normal.
    1. Acceleration peaked at 35 m/s^2 in the first .2 seconds
    2. Slackline travelled about 5mm after release
  4. They describe a falling condition as the COM being displaced too too far from the equilibrium position to be compensated for.
  5. When the slackliner is outside the plane of equilibrium, a force (the slackline restoring force?) is moving the COM away from equilibrium. The slackliner can apply force and angular momentum towards equilibrium by changing body configuration and using the stretch of the slackline
    1. Arm movement is the primary contributor to changing body configuration

Limitations