Comparison of overhead harness configurations for measuring trunk kinematics during treadmill disturbances

Emily J. Miller, Kenton R Kaufman

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Background: Research has shown that postural perturbation training reduces falls. Trunk kinematics, at recovery step, are key outcome measures. Fall prevention training programs are being developed for routine clinical care. In these programs, the subject is positioned on a treadmill and subjected to forward and backward disturbances which simulate trips and slips. The patient wears a safety vest attached to an overhead harness to create a secure environment. Motion capture is used to measure trunk kinematics. Research question: It is important to verify that trunk kinematics are independent of harness configuration. The purpose of this study was to compare the trunk flexion angle and angular velocity at recovery step after forward and backward disturbances on a treadmill measured by motion capture with the harness in both a fixed and free position. Methods: Ten healthy young adults (5/10 female, age: 29.2 ± 6.3 years, BMI: 24.2 ± 2.4) participated in this study. The subjects had retro-reflective markers placed on key anatomical landmarks to measure trunk kinematics. The participants experienced forward and backward disturbances, which incrementally increased in intensity until the harness clearly supported the subjects for three disturbances in both directions. The order of harness configurations was randomized across subjects and each subject participated in two consecutive rounds of disturbances, one round for each harness configuration. Equivalence testing was performed to demonstrate that the harness configurations were equivalent (α = 0.05). Results and significance: The Equivalence Test demonstrated that the trunk angle (TA) and angular velocity (TAV) were equivalent for the different harness configurations. The 95% Confidence Intervals (TA: [−2, 1], TAV: [−18, 16]) were within the equivalence interval (TA: [−3, 3], TAV: [−20, 20]) and the p-Values (TA: 0.008, TAV: 0.034) were less than alpha. Trunk kinematics are independent of overheard harness configurations during treadmill induced disturbances for clinical postural perturbation training.

LanguageEnglish (US)
Pages15-17
Number of pages3
JournalGait and Posture
Volume68
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 1 2019

Fingerprint

Biomechanical Phenomena
Research
Young Adult
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Confidence Intervals
Safety
Education

Keywords

  • Falls
  • Motion capture
  • Overhead harness
  • Treadmill disturbances
  • Trunk kinematics

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Biophysics
  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
  • Rehabilitation

Cite this

Comparison of overhead harness configurations for measuring trunk kinematics during treadmill disturbances. / Miller, Emily J.; Kaufman, Kenton R.

In: Gait and Posture, Vol. 68, 01.02.2019, p. 15-17.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{b94903bdaf934834a626fd20eea0d8b9,
title = "Comparison of overhead harness configurations for measuring trunk kinematics during treadmill disturbances",
abstract = "Background: Research has shown that postural perturbation training reduces falls. Trunk kinematics, at recovery step, are key outcome measures. Fall prevention training programs are being developed for routine clinical care. In these programs, the subject is positioned on a treadmill and subjected to forward and backward disturbances which simulate trips and slips. The patient wears a safety vest attached to an overhead harness to create a secure environment. Motion capture is used to measure trunk kinematics. Research question: It is important to verify that trunk kinematics are independent of harness configuration. The purpose of this study was to compare the trunk flexion angle and angular velocity at recovery step after forward and backward disturbances on a treadmill measured by motion capture with the harness in both a fixed and free position. Methods: Ten healthy young adults (5/10 female, age: 29.2 ± 6.3 years, BMI: 24.2 ± 2.4) participated in this study. The subjects had retro-reflective markers placed on key anatomical landmarks to measure trunk kinematics. The participants experienced forward and backward disturbances, which incrementally increased in intensity until the harness clearly supported the subjects for three disturbances in both directions. The order of harness configurations was randomized across subjects and each subject participated in two consecutive rounds of disturbances, one round for each harness configuration. Equivalence testing was performed to demonstrate that the harness configurations were equivalent (α = 0.05). Results and significance: The Equivalence Test demonstrated that the trunk angle (TA) and angular velocity (TAV) were equivalent for the different harness configurations. The 95{\%} Confidence Intervals (TA: [−2, 1], TAV: [−18, 16]) were within the equivalence interval (TA: [−3, 3], TAV: [−20, 20]) and the p-Values (TA: 0.008, TAV: 0.034) were less than alpha. Trunk kinematics are independent of overheard harness configurations during treadmill induced disturbances for clinical postural perturbation training.",
keywords = "Falls, Motion capture, Overhead harness, Treadmill disturbances, Trunk kinematics",
author = "Miller, {Emily J.} and Kaufman, {Kenton R}",
year = "2019",
month = "2",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.gaitpost.2018.11.001",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "68",
pages = "15--17",
journal = "Gait and Posture",
issn = "0966-6362",
publisher = "Elsevier",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of overhead harness configurations for measuring trunk kinematics during treadmill disturbances

AU - Miller, Emily J.

AU - Kaufman, Kenton R

PY - 2019/2/1

Y1 - 2019/2/1

N2 - Background: Research has shown that postural perturbation training reduces falls. Trunk kinematics, at recovery step, are key outcome measures. Fall prevention training programs are being developed for routine clinical care. In these programs, the subject is positioned on a treadmill and subjected to forward and backward disturbances which simulate trips and slips. The patient wears a safety vest attached to an overhead harness to create a secure environment. Motion capture is used to measure trunk kinematics. Research question: It is important to verify that trunk kinematics are independent of harness configuration. The purpose of this study was to compare the trunk flexion angle and angular velocity at recovery step after forward and backward disturbances on a treadmill measured by motion capture with the harness in both a fixed and free position. Methods: Ten healthy young adults (5/10 female, age: 29.2 ± 6.3 years, BMI: 24.2 ± 2.4) participated in this study. The subjects had retro-reflective markers placed on key anatomical landmarks to measure trunk kinematics. The participants experienced forward and backward disturbances, which incrementally increased in intensity until the harness clearly supported the subjects for three disturbances in both directions. The order of harness configurations was randomized across subjects and each subject participated in two consecutive rounds of disturbances, one round for each harness configuration. Equivalence testing was performed to demonstrate that the harness configurations were equivalent (α = 0.05). Results and significance: The Equivalence Test demonstrated that the trunk angle (TA) and angular velocity (TAV) were equivalent for the different harness configurations. The 95% Confidence Intervals (TA: [−2, 1], TAV: [−18, 16]) were within the equivalence interval (TA: [−3, 3], TAV: [−20, 20]) and the p-Values (TA: 0.008, TAV: 0.034) were less than alpha. Trunk kinematics are independent of overheard harness configurations during treadmill induced disturbances for clinical postural perturbation training.

AB - Background: Research has shown that postural perturbation training reduces falls. Trunk kinematics, at recovery step, are key outcome measures. Fall prevention training programs are being developed for routine clinical care. In these programs, the subject is positioned on a treadmill and subjected to forward and backward disturbances which simulate trips and slips. The patient wears a safety vest attached to an overhead harness to create a secure environment. Motion capture is used to measure trunk kinematics. Research question: It is important to verify that trunk kinematics are independent of harness configuration. The purpose of this study was to compare the trunk flexion angle and angular velocity at recovery step after forward and backward disturbances on a treadmill measured by motion capture with the harness in both a fixed and free position. Methods: Ten healthy young adults (5/10 female, age: 29.2 ± 6.3 years, BMI: 24.2 ± 2.4) participated in this study. The subjects had retro-reflective markers placed on key anatomical landmarks to measure trunk kinematics. The participants experienced forward and backward disturbances, which incrementally increased in intensity until the harness clearly supported the subjects for three disturbances in both directions. The order of harness configurations was randomized across subjects and each subject participated in two consecutive rounds of disturbances, one round for each harness configuration. Equivalence testing was performed to demonstrate that the harness configurations were equivalent (α = 0.05). Results and significance: The Equivalence Test demonstrated that the trunk angle (TA) and angular velocity (TAV) were equivalent for the different harness configurations. The 95% Confidence Intervals (TA: [−2, 1], TAV: [−18, 16]) were within the equivalence interval (TA: [−3, 3], TAV: [−20, 20]) and the p-Values (TA: 0.008, TAV: 0.034) were less than alpha. Trunk kinematics are independent of overheard harness configurations during treadmill induced disturbances for clinical postural perturbation training.

KW - Falls

KW - Motion capture

KW - Overhead harness

KW - Treadmill disturbances

KW - Trunk kinematics

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85056473163&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85056473163&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2018.11.001

DO - 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2018.11.001

M3 - Article

VL - 68

SP - 15

EP - 17

JO - Gait and Posture

T2 - Gait and Posture

JF - Gait and Posture

SN - 0966-6362

ER -