| Literature DB >> 29503391 |
Ingrid Svensson1, Chuansi Gao2, Amitava Halder2, Gunvor Gard3,4, Måns Magnusson5.
Abstract
Working and walking environments often involve standing positions on different surfaces with inclination and different friction. In this study, standing balance of thirteen participants during sudden and irregular external perturbation to calf muscles was investigated. The aim of the study was to evaluate the combined effect of surface inclination and friction on standing balance. The main findings when eyes closed revealed that the standing utilised coefficient of friction (μSUCOF) increased when the surface was inclined for both high and low friction materials. The anterior-posterior torque increased more anteriorly when the surface was inclined toes down and when the surface friction was low. The results indicate that the anterior-posterior torque is a sensitive parameter when evaluating standing balance ability and slip risk. On inclined surface, particularly on the surface with lower friction, the potential slip and fall risk is higher due to the increase of standing utilised coefficient of friction and increased forward turning torque.Entities:
Keywords: Anterior-posterior torque; Posture control; Slipping and falling risk; Slope; Utilised friction
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29503391 PMCID: PMC6066434 DOI: 10.2486/indhealth.2018-0005
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ind Health ISSN: 0019-8366 Impact factor: 2.179
Fig. 1.a) Schematic picture of the subject standing on the force platform. Note the definition of the positive directions for the three forces and torques that were measured. b) Example of data from the measurements: torque in the anterior posterior direction (Mx) from one of the subjects standing on the horizontal surface covered by roofing felt with eyes closed. Note the division of the result in five time periods, Q and P1–P4.
Fig. 2.Comparison of the linear mean values of standing utilised coefficient friction, , from data of the thirteen subjects with eyes closed: a) period 1 (P1) and b) period 2 (P2). The rings in the diagrams correspond to the linear mean value of all subjects in the study and each line corresponds to the interval.
Fig. 3.Comparison of the variance of torque: a) mean variance of Mx, b) mean variance of My, c) mean variance of Mx/My. The values of the torques were normalized to the body mass and height of each participant.
The quotient between epochs 4 and 1 of the variance of Mx, My and Mx/My
| Variance of torque (Eyes closed) | P4/P1 | P4/P1 | P4/P1 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quotient | Quotient | Quotient | ||||
| POM, horizontal | ns | 1.20 | ||||
| roofing felt, horizontal | ns | 0.81 | ns | 1.22 | ||
| POM, inclined 10% | ns | 1.14 | ns | 1.34 | ||
| roofing felt, inclined 10% | ns | 1.08 | ns | 0.72 | ||
*The quotient of the variance of Mx on POM and inclined 10% is significantly higher than on horizontal POM. **The quotient of Mx/My is significantly higher on roofing felt and inclined 10% than on horizontal roofing felt and horizontal POM.