4.5 Article

Comparison of a laboratory grade force platform with a Nintendo Wii Balance Board on measurement of postural control in single-leg stance balance tasks

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOMECHANICS
卷 46, 期 7, 页码 1392-1395

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2013.02.018

关键词

Force plate; Center of pressure; Balance performance; Validity; Accuracy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Training and testing of balance have potential applications in sports and medicine. Laboratory grade force plates (FP) are considered the gold standard for the measurement of balance performance. Measurements in these systems are based on the parameterization of center of pressure (COP) trajectories. Previous research validated the inexpensive, widely available and portable Nintendo Wii Balance Board (WBB). The novelty of the present study is that FP and WBB are compared on CoP data that was collected simultaneously, by placing the WBB on the FP. Fourteen healthy participants performed ten sequences of single-leg stance tasks with eyes open (EO), eyes closed (EC) and after a sideways hop (HOP). Within trial comparison of the two systems showed small root-mean-square differences for the CoP trajectories in the x and y direction during the three tasks (mean +/- SD; EO: 0.33 +/- 0.10 and 031 +/- 0.16 mm; EC: 0.58 +/- 0.17 and 0.63 +/- 0.19 mm; HOP: 0.74 +/- 0.34 and 0.74 +/- 0.27 mm, respectively). Additionally, during all 420 trials, comparison of FP and WBB revealed very high Pearson's correlation coefficients (r) of the CoP trajectories (x: 0.999 +/- 0.002; y: 0.998 +/- 0.003). A general overestimation was found on the WBB compared to the FP for 'CoP path velocity' (EO: 5.3 +/- 1.9%; EC: 4.0 +/- 1.4%; HOP: 4.6 +/- 1.6%) and 'mean absolute CoP sway' (EO: 3.5 +/- 0.7%; EC: 3.7 +/- 0.5%; HOP: 3.6 +/- 1.0%). This overestimation was highly consistent over the 140 trials per task (r>0.996). The present findings demonstrate that WBB is sufficiently accurate in quantifying COP trajectory, and overall amplitude and velocity during single-leg stance balance tasks. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据