The contribution of counter-rotation movements during fall recovery: A validation study
| Autor: | Benjamin C. Conner, Jeremy R. Crenshaw, Drew A. Petersen, R. Tyler Richardson, Elizabeth A. Rapp van Roden, Jamie Pigman |
|---|---|
| Rok vydání: | 2018 |
| Předmět: |
Male
Counter rotation 030506 rehabilitation Validation study medicine.medical_specialty Rotation Movement Biomedical Engineering Biophysics Poison control Context (language use) Young Adult 03 medical and health sciences 0302 clinical medicine Physical medicine and rehabilitation medicine Humans Orthopedics and Sports Medicine Treadmill Postural Balance Mathematics Foot Rehabilitation Construct validity Biomechanical Phenomena Convergent validity Arm Accidental Falls Female 0305 other medical science 030217 neurology & neurosurgery |
| Zdroj: | Journal of Biomechanics. 78:102-108 |
| ISSN: | 0021-9290 |
| DOI: | 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2018.07.025 |
| Popis: | Three mechanisms of maintaining standing stability include M 1 – moving the COP within the base of support, M 2 – segment counter-rotation, and M 3 – applying an external force. To date, the contributions of these mechanisms have not been quantified for the response to an external postural disturbance. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the construct validity of measures that quantify the M 2 contribution to anteroposterior fall recovery. We evaluated the whole-body rotation contribution, as well as a measure specific to arm motion (M ARMS ). With segment counter-rotation as the main focus of this study, we examined standing feet-in-place responses to treadmill-induced falls. The treatment validity of our measures was assessed by comparing unconstrained responses to those with constrained arm motion. The convergent validity of our measures was assessed by correlating peak shoulder flexion and extension velocities with counter-rotation contributions. Eleven unimpaired participants responded to anteroposterior belt accelerations from a treadmill, and the M 2 and M ARMS contributions were quantified from three-dimensional segment motion. The treatment validity of these measures was partially supported. Constraining the arms reduced M 2 for anterior, but not posterior falls. Conversely, M ARMS was reduced for posterior, but not anterior falls. Convergent validity was supported for M ARMS ( r = 0.64–0.78), but not M 2 ( r = −0.40 to −0.15). These results support the use of M ARMS over M 2 when interested in the role of arm motion. Given that arm constraints did not change the contribution of M ARMS during a forward fall, unimpaired participants may not necessarily rely on arm motion as part of their recovery strategy in this context. |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|
Full Text from ScienceDirect