Catalfamo Paola, Moser David, Ghoussayni Salim, Ewins David
Centre for Biomedical Engineering, School of Engineering, Duke of Kent Building, 12DK03, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey GU2 7TE, UK.
Gait Posture. 2008 Oct;28(3):420-6. doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2008.01.019. Epub 2008 May 8.
A portable system capable of accurate detection of initial contact (IC) and foot off (FO) without adding encumbrance to the subject would be extremely useful in many gait analysis applications. Force platforms represent the gold standard method for determining these events and other methods including foot switches and kinematic data have also been proposed. These approaches, however, present limitations in terms of the number of steps that can be analysed per trial, the portability for outdoor measurements or the information needed beforehand. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the F-Scan((R)) Mobile pressure measurement system when detecting IC and FO. Two methods were used, one was the force detection (FD) in-built algorithm used by F-Scan software and a new area detection (AD) method using the loaded area during the gait cycle. Both methods were tested in ten healthy adults and compared with the detection provided by a kinetic detection (KT) algorithm. The absolute mean differences between KT and FD were (mean+/-standard deviation) 42+/-11 ms for IC and 37+/-11 ms for FO. The absolute mean differences between KT and AD were 22+/-9 ms for IC and 10+/-4 ms for FO. The AD method remained closer to KT detection for all subjects providing sufficiently accurate detection of both events and presenting advantages in terms of portability, number of steps analysed per trial and practicality as to make it a system of choice for gait event detection.
一种能够在不给受试者增加负担的情况下准确检测初始接触(IC)和离地(FO)的便携式系统,在许多步态分析应用中都将非常有用。测力平台是确定这些事件的金标准方法,也有人提出了包括脚踏开关和运动学数据在内的其他方法。然而,这些方法在每次试验可分析的步数、户外测量的便携性或事先所需的信息方面存在局限性。本研究的目的是评估F-Scan®移动压力测量系统在检测IC和FO时的性能。使用了两种方法,一种是F-Scan软件中使用的力检测(FD)内置算法,另一种是在步态周期中使用加载面积的新的面积检测(AD)方法。两种方法都在10名健康成年人中进行了测试,并与动力学检测(KT)算法提供的检测结果进行了比较。KT和FD之间的绝对平均差异(均值±标准差),IC为42±11毫秒,FO为37±11毫秒。KT和AD之间的绝对平均差异,IC为22±9毫秒,FO为10±4毫秒。对于所有受试者,AD方法与KT检测结果更为接近,能充分准确地检测这两个事件,并且在便携性、每次试验分析的步数和实用性方面具有优势,使其成为步态事件检测的首选系统。