Test-retest reliability [corrected] of center of pressure measures of postural stability during quiet standing in a group with musculoskeletal disorders consisting of low back pain, anterior cruciate ligament injury and functional ankle instability.
ABSTRACT Reliability is a population-specific property, but to the authors' knowledge there has been no study to determine the test-retest reliability of the postural stability measures such as center of pressure (COP) measures in the population of patients with musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs), while their clinical applications have been presented in literature. So, 33 patients with low back pain (LBP), anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury and functional ankle instability (FAI) randomly completed postural measurements with three levels of difficulty (rigid surface-eyes open, rigid surface-eyes closed, and foam surface-eyes closed) in two sessions. COP data were used to calculate standard deviation of amplitude, standard deviation of velocity, phase plane portrait, mean total velocity and area (95% confidence ellipse). Relative reliability of these measures was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and absolute reliability using standard error of measurement (SEM) and coefficient of variation (CV). Also, minimal metrically detectable change (MMDC) was calculated to quantify intervention effects. Among different COP parameters, mean total velocity in all conditions of postural difficulty showed high to very high reliability, with ICC range of 0.74-0.91, SEM range of 0.09-0.40cm/s, CV range of 5.31-8.29% and MMDC range of 0.19-0.79cm/s. Phase plane portrait in anteroposterior-mediolateral (AP-ML) and ML direction were other best parameters with respect to the level of reliability. Mean total velocity and phase plane portrait parameters are suggested as good candidates to use for quantification and assessment of balance performance and identifying those with MSDs.
SourceAvailable from: Gert Mertes
Conference Paper: Automatic fall risk estimation using the Nintendo Wii balance board[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: In this paper, a tool to assess a person’s fall risk with the Nintendo Wii Balance Board based on Center of Pressure (CoP) recordings is presented. Support Vector Machine and K-Nearest Neighbours classifiers are used to distinguish between people who experienced a fall in the past twelve months and those who have not. The classifiers are trained using data recorded from 39 people containing a mix of students and elderly. Validation is done using 10-fold cross-validation and the classifiers are also validated against additional data recorded from 12 elderly. A cross-validated average accuracy of 96.49% +/- 4.02 is achieved with the SVM classifier with radial basis function kernel and 95.72% +/- 1.48 is achieved with the KNN classifier with k = 4. Validation against the additional dataset of 12 elderly results in a maximum accuracy of 76.6% with the linear SVM.International Joint Conference on Biomedical Engineering Systems and Technologies (BIOSTEC), Lisbon, Portugal; 01/2015
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The sensorimotor system (SMS) plays an important role in sports and in every day movement. Several tools for assessment and training have been designed. Many of them are directed to specific populations, and have major shortcomings due to the training effect or safety. The aim of the present study was to design and assess a dynamic sensorimotor test and training device that can be adjusted for all levels of performance. The novel pneumatic-driven mechatronic device can guide the trainee, allow independent movements or disrupt the individual with unpredicted perturbations while standing on a platform. The test-reliability was evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Subjects were required to balance their center of pressure (COP) in a target circle (TITC). The time in TITC and the COP error (COPe) were recorded for analysis. The results of 22 males and 14 females (23.7 ± 2.6 years) showed good to excellent test-retest reliability. The newly designed Active Balance System (ABS) was then compared with the Biodex Balance System SD® (BBS). The results of 15 females, 14 males (23.4 ± 1.6 years) showed modest correlation in static and acceptable correlation in dynamic conditions, suggesting that ABS could be a reliable and comparable tool for dynamic balance assessments.Sensors 12/2014; 14(12):24174-24187. DOI:10.3390/s141224174 · 2.05 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Individuals with visual impairment (VI) have irreparable damage to one of the input streams contributing to postural stability. Here, we evaluated the intra-session test-retest reliability of the Wii Balance Board (WBB) for measuring Center of Pressure (COP) magnitude and structure, i.e. approximate entropy (ApEn) in fourteen legally blind participants and 21 participants with corrected-to-normal vision. Participants completed a validated balance protocol which included four sensory conditions: double-leg standing on a firm surface with eyes open (EO-firm); a firm surface with eyes closed (EC-firm); a foam surface with EO (EO-foam); and a foam surface with EC (EC-foam). Participants performed the full balance protocol twice during the session, separated by a period of 15 minutes, to determine the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Absolute reliability was determined by the standard error of measurement (SEM). The minimal difference (MD) was estimated to determine clinical significance for future studies. COP measures were derived from data sent by the WBB to a laptop via Bluetooth. COP scores increased with the difficulty of sensory condition indicating WBB sensitivity (all p < 0.01). ICCs in the VI group ranged from 0.73 to 0.95, indicating high to very high correlations, and the normal group showed moderate to very high ICCs (0.62-0.94). The SEM was comparable between groups regardless of between-subject variability. The reliability of the WBB makes it practical to screen for balance impairment among VI persons.Gait & Posture 12/2015; 41(In Press). DOI:10.1016/j.gaitpost.2014.11.012 · 2.30 Impact Factor