Literature DB >> 26439522

Walking with eyes closed is easier than walking with eyes open without visual cues: The Romberg task versus the goggle task.

A P Yelnik1, S Tasseel Ponche2, C Andriantsifanetra3, C Provost4, A Calvalido3, P Rougier5.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The Romberg test, with the subject standing and with eyes closed, gives diagnostic arguments for a proprioceptive disorder. Closing the eyes is also used in balance rehabilitation as a main way to stimulate neural plasticity with proprioceptive, vestibular and even cerebellar disorders. Nevertheless, standing and walking with eyes closed or with eyes open in the dark are certainly 2 different tasks. We aimed to compare walking with eyes open, closed and wearing black or white goggles in healthy subjects.
METHODS: A total of 50 healthy participants were randomly divided into 2 protocols and asked to walk on a 5-m pressure-sensitive mat, under 3 conditions: (1) eyes open (EO), eyes closed (EC) and eyes open with black goggles (BG) and (2) EO, EO with BG and with white goggles (WG). Gait was described by velocity (m·s(-1)), double support (% gait cycle), gait variability index (GVI/100) and exit from the mat (%). Analysis involved repeated measures Anova, Holm-Sidak's multiple comparisons test for parametric parameters (GVI) and Dunn's multiple comparisons test for non-parametric parameters.
RESULTS: As compared with walking with EC, walking with BG produced lower median velocity, by 6% (EO 1.26; BG 1.01 vs EC 1.07 m·s(-1), P=0.0328), and lower mean GVI, by 8% (EO 91.8; BG 66.8 vs EC 72.24, P=0.009). Parameters did not differ between walking under the BG and WG conditions.
CONCLUSION: The goggle task increases the difficulty in walking with visual deprivation compared to the Romberg task, so the goggle task can be proposed to gradually increase the difficulty in walking with visual deprivation (from eyes closed to eyes open in black goggles).
Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Balance; Eyes closed; Goggles; Romberg; Walk

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26439522     DOI: 10.1016/j.rehab.2015.08.004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Phys Rehabil Med        ISSN: 1877-0657


  3 in total

1.  Different haptic tools reduce trunk velocity in the frontal plane during walking, but haptic anchors have advantages over lightly touching a railing.

Authors:  Isabel Hedayat; Renato Moraes; Joel L Lanovaz; Alison R Oates
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2017-03-10       Impact factor: 1.972

2.  Addressing limitations of the Gait Variability Index to enhance its applicability: The enhanced GVI (EGVI).

Authors:  Arnaud Gouelle; Linda Rennie; David J Clark; Fabrice Mégrot; Chitralakshmi K Balasubramanian
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-06-01       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  Comparison of Gait Parameters during Forward Walking under Different Visual Conditions Using Inertial Motion Sensors.

Authors:  Eun Jin Son; Ji Hyung Kim; Hye Eun Noh; Inon Kim; Joo Ae Lim; Seung Hwan Han
Journal:  Yonsei Med J       Date:  2022-01       Impact factor: 2.759

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.