Literature DB >> 24447906

Dynamic stability margin using a marker based system and Tekscan: a comparison of four gait conditions.

Vipul Lugade1, Kenton Kaufman2.   

Abstract

Stability during gait is maintained through control of the center of mass (CoM) position and velocity in relation to the base of support (BoS). The dynamic stability margin, or the interaction of the extrapolated center of mass with the closest boundary of the BoS, can reveal possible control errors during gait. The purpose of this study was to investigate a marker based method for defining the BoS, and compare the dynamic stability margin throughout gait in comparison to a BoS defined from foot pressure sensors. The root mean squared difference between these two methodologies ranged from 0.9 cm to 3.5 cm, when walking under four conditions: plantigrade, equinus, everted, and inverted. As the stability margin approaches -35 cm prior to contralateral heel strike, there was approximately 90% agreement between the two systems at this time point. Underestimation of the marker based dynamic stability margin or overestimation of the pressure based dynamic stability margin was due to inaccuracies in defining the medial boundary of the BoS. Overall, care must be taken to ensure similar definitions of the BoS are utilized when comparing the dynamic stability margin between participants and gait conditions.
Copyright © 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Base of support; Dynamic stability; Gait; Motion analysis; Pressure sensors

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24447906      PMCID: PMC4029865          DOI: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2013.12.023

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gait Posture        ISSN: 0966-6362            Impact factor:   2.840


  13 in total

1.  Quantification of the path of center of pressure (COP) using an F-scan in-shoe transducer.

Authors:  T R Han; N J Paik; M S Im
Journal:  Gait Posture       Date:  1999-12       Impact factor: 2.840

2.  Velocity of the center of pressure during walking.

Authors:  M W Cornwall; T G McPoil
Journal:  J Am Podiatr Med Assoc       Date:  2000 Jul-Aug

3.  Comparison of an in-shoe pressure measurement device to a force plate: concurrent validity of center of pressure measurements.

Authors:  K J Chesnin; L Selby-Silverstein; M P Besser
Journal:  Gait Posture       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 2.840

4.  An investigation of the centres of pressure under the foot while walking.

Authors:  M Grundy; P A Tosh; R D McLeish; L Smidt
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  1975-02

5.  The trajectory of the centre of pressure during barefoot running as a potential measure for foot function.

Authors:  A De Cock; J Vanrenterghem; T Willems; E Witvrouw; D De Clercq
Journal:  Gait Posture       Date:  2007-11-09       Impact factor: 2.840

6.  Foot center of pressure trajectory alteration by biomechanical manipulation of shoe design.

Authors:  Mona Khoury; Alon Wolf; Eytan M Debbi; Amir Herman; Amir Haim
Journal:  Foot Ankle Int       Date:  2013-02-28       Impact factor: 2.827

7.  The center of pressure index in the evaluation of foot orthoses in shoes.

Authors:  P R Scherer; G A Sobiesk
Journal:  Clin Podiatr Med Surg       Date:  1994-04       Impact factor: 1.231

8.  The effect of soft foot orthotics on three-dimensional lower-limb kinematics during walking and running.

Authors:  J J Eng; M R Pierrynowski
Journal:  Phys Ther       Date:  1994-09

9.  The effect of foot structure and range of motion on musculoskeletal overuse injuries.

Authors:  K R Kaufman; S K Brodine; R A Shaffer; C W Johnson; T R Cullison
Journal:  Am J Sports Med       Date:  1999 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 6.202

10.  Detection of gait instability using the center of mass and center of pressure inclination angles.

Authors:  Heng-Ju Lee; Li-Shan Chou
Journal:  Arch Phys Med Rehabil       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 3.966

View more
  7 in total

1.  Evaluation of an ankle-foot orthosis effect on gait transitional stability during ramp ascent/descent.

Authors:  Imran Mahmood; Anam Raza; Hafiz Farhan Maqbool; Abbas A Dehghani-Sanij
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2022-05-21       Impact factor: 2.602

2.  A cutaneous mechanoneural interface for neuroprosthetic feedback.

Authors:  Shriya S Srinivasan; Hugh M Herr
Journal:  Nat Biomed Eng       Date:  2021-02-01       Impact factor: 29.234

3.  Gait Stability Training in a Virtual Environment Improves Gait and Dynamic Balance Capacity in Incomplete Spinal Cord Injury Patients.

Authors:  Rosanne B van Dijsseldonk; Lysanne A F de Jong; Brenda E Groen; Marije Vos-van der Hulst; Alexander C H Geurts; Noel L W Keijsers
Journal:  Front Neurol       Date:  2018-11-20       Impact factor: 4.003

4.  Gait Segmentation Method Using a Plantar Pressure Measurement System with Custom-Made Capacitive Sensors.

Authors:  Pablo Aqueveque; Enrique Germany; Rodrigo Osorio; Francisco Pastene
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2020-01-24       Impact factor: 3.576

5.  Ambulatory assessment of walking balance after stroke using instrumented shoes.

Authors:  Fokke B van Meulen; Dirk Weenk; Jaap H Buurke; Bert-Jan F van Beijnum; Peter H Veltink
Journal:  J Neuroeng Rehabil       Date:  2016-05-19       Impact factor: 4.262

Review 6.  Objective impairments of gait and balance in adults living with HIV-1 infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.

Authors:  Karina Berner; Linzette Morris; Jochen Baumeister; Quinette Louw
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2017-08-01       Impact factor: 2.362

7.  Muscle forces and the demands of human walking.

Authors:  Adam D Sylvester; Steven G Lautzenheiser; Patricia Ann Kramer
Journal:  Biol Open       Date:  2021-07-19       Impact factor: 2.422

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.