Spinal cord · 2015
Wheelchair users' perceived exertion during typical mobility activities.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Qi L, Ferguson-Pell M, Salimi Z, Haennel R, Ramadi A
Аннотация
STUDY DESIGN: Each participant performed a series of wheelchair exercises equivalent in intensity to minimal functional speed (1 m s(-1)), functional walking speed (1.3 m s(-1)), a relatively challenging speed (1.6 m s(-1)) and a self-selected speed. Each participant also completed a graded exercise test (GXT) to volitional exhaustion (VO2peak).
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was (1) to assess the physical capacity of wheelchair users as they undertake typical mobility activities and (2) to investigate how closely the components of a differentiated model of perceived exertion mirror wheelchair users' own perception of exertion.
METHODS: Eleven (eight males and three females) spinal cord-injured or congenitally impaired wheelchair-dependent participants volunteered for the study. Differentiated ratings of perceived exertion (RPE_arm and RPE_respiration) and oxygen uptake (VO2) and heart rate were recorded during each exercise.
RESULTS: The mean comfortable speed at which the participants propelled their own wheelchairs on the wheelchair ergometer was 1.1±0.2 m s(-1). Speeds of 1 m s(-1) and 1.3 m s(-1) are typical of everyday functional propulsion. The corresponding RPE_respiration and RPE_arm ranged from 7 to 13 on the Borg scale; the %VO2peak measured in these trials ranged from 37 to 80% VO2peak. For propulsion intensities used in the present study-low, moderate, high and graded exercise intensity-no difference could be observed between RPE_respiration and RPE_arm. There were no significant differences between RPE_arm and RPE_respiration at the termination of the GXT.
CONCLUSION: The current study showed potential for the use of RPE to assess and monitor daily wheelchair propulsion intensity in individuals with paraplegia.
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was (1) to assess the physical capacity of wheelchair users as they undertake typical mobility activities and (2) to investigate how closely the components of a differentiated model of perceived exertion mirror wheelchair users' own perception of exertion.
METHODS: Eleven (eight males and three females) spinal cord-injured or congenitally impaired wheelchair-dependent participants volunteered for the study. Differentiated ratings of perceived exertion (RPE_arm and RPE_respiration) and oxygen uptake (VO2) and heart rate were recorded during each exercise.
RESULTS: The mean comfortable speed at which the participants propelled their own wheelchairs on the wheelchair ergometer was 1.1±0.2 m s(-1). Speeds of 1 m s(-1) and 1.3 m s(-1) are typical of everyday functional propulsion. The corresponding RPE_respiration and RPE_arm ranged from 7 to 13 on the Borg scale; the %VO2peak measured in these trials ranged from 37 to 80% VO2peak. For propulsion intensities used in the present study-low, moderate, high and graded exercise intensity-no difference could be observed between RPE_respiration and RPE_arm. There were no significant differences between RPE_arm and RPE_respiration at the termination of the GXT.
CONCLUSION: The current study showed potential for the use of RPE to assess and monitor daily wheelchair propulsion intensity in individuals with paraplegia.