| Literature DB >> 32410925 |
Hiromichi Hagihara1,2, Naoto Ienaga2,3, Daiki Enomoto4, Shuhei Takahata5, Hiroyuki Ishihara6, Haruka Noda7, Koji Tsuda8,9, Kei Terayama9,10,11.
Abstract
This study aimed to leverage computer vision (CV) technology to develop a technique for quantifying postural control. A conventional quantitative index, occupational therapists' qualitative clinical evaluations, and CV-based quantitative indices using an image analysis algorithm were applied to evaluate the postural control of 34 typically developed preschoolers. The effectiveness of the CV-based indices was investigated relative to current methods to explore the clinical applicability of the proposed method. The capacity of the CV-based indices to reflect therapists' qualitative evaluations was confirmed. Furthermore, compared to the conventional quantitative index, the CV-based indices provided more detailed quantitative information with lower costs. CV-based evaluations enable therapists to quantify details of motor performance that are currently observed qualitatively. The development of such precise quantification methods will improve the science and practice of occupational therapy and allow therapists to perform to their full potential.Entities:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32410925 PMCID: PMC7201486 DOI: 10.1155/2020/8542191
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Occup Ther Int ISSN: 0966-7903 Impact factor: 1.448
Figure 1Research flowchart.
Figure 2Scatter plot of SPB and AG with colour bar of TQCE.
Figure 3Comparison of the CV- and DT-based models. (a) Correlation coefficient between TQCE and CV- (blue) or DT-based (orange) models for every 10 s of test time. (b) Scatter plot of CV-based scores and TQCE at the test time of 20 s. (c) Scatter plot of CV-based scores and TQCE at the test time of 60 s. (d) Scatter plot of DT-based scores and TQCE at the test time of 20 s. (e) Scatter plot of DT-based scores and TQCE at the test time of 60 s. ∗∗∗p < 0.001.
Regression analysis results.
| Model using SPB, AG, and DT | Model using only DT | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Test time: 20 s | Test time: 60 s | Test time: 20 s | Test time: 60 s | |||||
| Variables |
| ( |
| ( |
| ( |
| ( |
| SPB | 0.35 | (0.083)∗∗∗ | 0.25 | (0.059)∗∗∗ | ||||
| AG | 0.25 | (0.070)∗∗∗ | 0.22 | (0.050)∗∗∗ | ||||
| DT | 0.50 | (0.068)∗∗∗ | 0.69 | (0.060)∗∗∗ | 0.76 | (0.081)∗∗∗ | 0.88 | (0.059)∗∗∗ |
| Adjusted | 0.69∗∗∗ | 0.84∗∗∗ | 0.57∗∗∗ | 0.77∗∗∗ | ||||
∗∗∗ p < 0.001; therapists' qualitative clinical evaluation (TQCE) was set as the objective variable. SPB: static postural stability; AG: antigravity posture; DT: duration time; SE: standard error.