Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation · 2014
Comparison of mirror, raw video, and real-time visual biofeedback for training toe-out gait in individuals with knee osteoarthritis.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Hunt Michael A, Takacs Judit, Hart Katie, Massong Erika, Fuchko Keri, Biegler Jennifer
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare performance error and perceived difficulty during toe-out gait modification in people with knee osteoarthritis (OA) across 3 different types of visual feedback: mirror, raw video, and real-time biofeedback of toe-out angle.
DESIGN: Repeated-measures, within-subject trial.
SETTING: University motion analysis laboratory.
PARTICIPANTS: Individuals with knee OA (N=20; 11 women; mean age, 65.4±9.8y) participated in this study. Seven participants had mild knee OA, 9 had moderate knee OA, and 4 had severe knee OA.
INTERVENTIONS: Participants were trained to walk on a treadmill while matching a target indicating a 10° increase in stance phase toe-out compared with toe-out angle measured during self-selected walking. The target was provided visually via the 3 types of feedback listed above and were presented in a random order.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Kinematic data were collected and used to calculate the difference between the target angle and the actual performed angle for each condition (toe-out performance error). Difficulty was assessed using a numerical rating scale (0-10) provided verbally by participants.
RESULTS: Toe-out performance error was significantly less when using the real-time biofeedback method than when using the other 2 methods (P=.025; mean difference vs mirror=2.05°; mean difference vs raw video=1.51°). Perceived difficulty was not statistically different between the groups (P=.51).
CONCLUSIONS: Although statistically significant, the 2° difference in toe-out gait performance error may not necessitate the large economic and personnel costs of real-time biofeedback as a means to modify movement in clinical or research settings.
DESIGN: Repeated-measures, within-subject trial.
SETTING: University motion analysis laboratory.
PARTICIPANTS: Individuals with knee OA (N=20; 11 women; mean age, 65.4±9.8y) participated in this study. Seven participants had mild knee OA, 9 had moderate knee OA, and 4 had severe knee OA.
INTERVENTIONS: Participants were trained to walk on a treadmill while matching a target indicating a 10° increase in stance phase toe-out compared with toe-out angle measured during self-selected walking. The target was provided visually via the 3 types of feedback listed above and were presented in a random order.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Kinematic data were collected and used to calculate the difference between the target angle and the actual performed angle for each condition (toe-out performance error). Difficulty was assessed using a numerical rating scale (0-10) provided verbally by participants.
RESULTS: Toe-out performance error was significantly less when using the real-time biofeedback method than when using the other 2 methods (P=.025; mean difference vs mirror=2.05°; mean difference vs raw video=1.51°). Perceived difficulty was not statistically different between the groups (P=.51).
CONCLUSIONS: Although statistically significant, the 2° difference in toe-out gait performance error may not necessitate the large economic and personnel costs of real-time biofeedback as a means to modify movement in clinical or research settings.