Lumbar proprioception relates to time up and go but not to five time sit to stand in asymptomatic participants

This study aimed to explore the relationship between lumbar proprioception, self-reported negative mood, and QoL in asymptomatic adults.

A total of 29 asymptomatic participants (mean age = 48.2, SD = 16.2) were recruited. Psychological and QoL assessments included the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS), Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS), and the Short Form-36 (SF-36). The SF-36 subscales—physical functioning (PF), role physical (RP), bodily pain (BP), general health (GH), vitality (VT), social functioning (SF), role emotional (RE), and mental health (MH)—were used to assess QoL.

Lumbar reposition error, including constant error (CE), variable error (VE), and absolute error (AE), was measured using an ultrasound motion analysis system (Zebris Medizintechnik GmbH, Isny, Germany). Two sensors were placed at the T12 vertebral level and the posterior superior iliac spine (PSIS) to measure lumbar reposition sense. Participants stood in a neutral position, and measurements were taken during neutral-to-anterior, anterior-to-neutral, neutral-to-posterior, and posterior-to-neutral pelvic tilting, all performed while standing with eyes closed. Motor function was assessed using the Timed Up and Go (TUG) test and the 5-time Sit-to-Stand (STS) test, with times in seconds recorded. 

Pearson correlation was used to examine relationships between lumbar reposition error and demographic data, psychological scores, and QoL. Linear regression models were applied to identify predictors after controlling for demographic and psychological factors.

Reposition error was unrelated to demographics like age but was linked to psychological factors: VE (anterior-to-neutral) correlated with PSQI (r = 0.433, p = 0.023); VE (posterior-to-neutral) with PROMIS anxiety (r = -0.368, p = 0.05); and AE (anterior-to-neutral) with PSQI (r = 0.377, p = 0.044).

For motor function, reposition error was tied to TUG but not STS. CE (anterior-to-neutral) correlated with TUG (r = 0.373, p = 0.046), and CE (neutral-to-posterior) had a stronger correlation (r = 0.536, p = 0.003).

For QoL, reposition error correlated with multiple SF-36 subscales. VE (anterior) was linked to SF-36 RP (r = -0.504, p = 0.005) and SF-36 RE (r = 0.470, p = 0.01). VE and AE (anterior-to-neutral) were associated with SF-36 VT (r = 0.398, p = 0.032; r = 0.407, p = 0.028).

After adjusting for age, CE (neutral-to-posterior) predicted TUG performance (F(2,26) = 4.42, p = 0.02), with a standardized β of 0.441 (p = 0.023). Neither VE nor AE (anterior-to-neutral) predicted SF-36 VT after adjusting for age and PROMIS depression scores.

Lumbar reposition error is associated with motor function, specifically TUG performance. After controlling for psychological factors, reposition error did not predict QoL.

Lumbar proprioception could be considered a factor in improving motor speed in asymptomatic participants.