Wiens Casey, Denton William, Schieber Molly N, Hartley Ryan, Marmelat Vivien, Myers Sara A, Yentes Jennifer M
University of Nebraska - Omaha, Omaha, NE, United States.
University of Nebraska - Omaha, Omaha, NE, United States.
J Biomech. 2019 Jan 23;83:221-226. doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2018.11.051. Epub 2018 Dec 7.
The purpose of the study was to compare the effects of a feedback-controlled treadmill (FeedbackTM) to a traditional fixed-speed treadmill (FixedTM) on spatiotemporal gait means, variability, and dynamics. The study also examined inter-session reliability when using the FeedbackTM. Ten young adults walked on the FeedbackTM for a 5-minute familiarization followed by a 16-minute experimental trial. They returned within one week and completed a 5-minute familiarization followed by a 16-minute experimental trial each for FeedbackTM and FixedTM conditions. Mean walking speed and step time, length, width, and speed means and coefficient of variation were calculated from all experimental conditions. Step time, length, width, and speed gait dynamics were analyzed using detrended fluctuation analysis. Mean differences between experimental trials were determined using ANOVAs and reliability between FeedbackTM sessions was determined by intraclass correlation coefficient. No difference was found in mean walking speed nor spatiotemporal variables, with the exception of step width, between the experimental trials. All mean spatiotemporal variables demonstrated good to excellent reliability between sessions, while coefficient of variation was not reliable. Gait dynamics of step time, length, width, and speed were significantly more persistent during the FeedbackTM condition compared to FixedTM, especially step speed. However, gait dynamics demonstrated fair to poor reliability between FeedbackTM sessions. When walking on the FeedbackTM, users maintain a consistent set point, yet the gait dynamics around the mean are different when compared to walking on a FixedTM. In addition, spatiotemporal gait dynamics and variability may not be consistent across separate days when using the FeedbackTM.
本研究的目的是比较反馈控制跑步机(FeedbackTM)与传统固定速度跑步机(FixedTM)对时空步态均值、变异性和动力学的影响。该研究还考察了使用FeedbackTM时不同试验阶段之间的可靠性。10名年轻成年人在FeedbackTM上进行了5分钟的适应性行走,随后进行了16分钟的实验性试验。他们在一周内返回,分别在FeedbackTM和FixedTM条件下完成了5分钟的适应性行走,随后进行了16分钟的实验性试验。从所有实验条件中计算出平均步行速度、步幅时间、步幅长度、步幅宽度、速度均值和变异系数。使用去趋势波动分析对步幅时间、步幅长度、步幅宽度和速度步态动力学进行分析。使用方差分析确定实验性试验之间的平均差异,并通过组内相关系数确定FeedbackTM各试验阶段之间的可靠性。在实验性试验之间,除步幅宽度外,平均步行速度和时空变量均未发现差异。所有平均时空变量在各试验阶段之间均表现出良好至优异的可靠性,而变异系数则不可靠。与FixedTM相比,在FeedbackTM条件下,步幅时间、步幅长度、步幅宽度和速度的步态动力学持续性明显更高,尤其是步速。然而,在FeedbackTM各试验阶段之间,步态动力学的可靠性表现为中等至较差。在FeedbackTM上行走时,使用者保持一致的设定点,但与在FixedTM上行走相比,均值周围的步态动力学有所不同。此外,使用FeedbackTM时,时空步态动力学和变异性在不同日期可能不一致。