Postural stability assessment and orthotics

2002 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Ferdjallah ◽  
G.F. Harris ◽  
P.A. Smith ◽  
S. Hassani ◽  
P. Johnson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Postural Stability ◽  
Stability Assessment

Postural Stability Assessment in Sewer Workers

1996 ◽  
Vol 38 (1) ◽  
pp. 27-34 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wei Kuo ◽  
Amit Bhattacharya ◽  
Paul Succop ◽  
Douglas Linz
Keyword(s):  
Postural Stability ◽  
Stability Assessment

Monopodal Postural Stability Assessment by Wireless Inertial Measurement Units Through the Fast Fourier Transform

2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (6) ◽  
pp. 738-747
Author(s):  
José Pino-Ortega ◽  
Alejandro Hernández-Belmonte ◽  
Carlos D. Gómez-Carmona ◽  
Alejandro Bastida-Castillo ◽  
Javier García-Rubio ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Fourier Transform ◽  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Fast Fourier Transform ◽  
Lower Limb ◽  
Postural Stability ◽  
National Level ◽  
The Body ◽  
Stability Assessment ◽  
Body Segment ◽  
Body Segments

Objectives: (1) To describe the fast Fourier transform (FFT) multijoint as monopodal postural stability measurement in well-trained athletes, (2) to compare the within-subject FFT between laterality, joints, and body segments, and (3) to establish the within- and between-subject relationship between joints. Methods: Twelve national-level basketball players participated voluntarily in this investigation. The participants performed two 60-second repetitions of a monopodal stability test (1 repetition with each lower limb), separated by 3 minutes of active recovery. All tests were recorded by 4 WIMU PRO™ inertial devices located on the ankle, knee, lumbar spine, and thoracic spine. The main variable was total acceleration, where the FFT was applied. Results: The higher instability results were found in the ankle and in the nondominant lower limb (dominant = 1.131 [0.122] a.u. (arbitrary units); nondominant = 1.141 [0.172] a.u). In the body segment analysis, the greater percentage of differences (%diff) were shown between lumbar spine and knee in the dominant (%diff = −2.989%; d = 0.87) and nondominant (%diff = −3.243%; d = 0.90) lower limb. Finally, very large between-subjects variability was found in all joints and body segments. Conclusions: The described protocol is proposed for monopodal postural stability assessment, being useful to provide information about the stability of joints and the body segment between joints. Besides, a within-subject analysis is recommended, and the FFT calculation will enable a linear analysis of each test.

A low-cost real time virtual system for postural stability assessment at home

2014 ◽  
Vol 117 (2) ◽  
pp. 322-333 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giuseppe Placidi ◽  
Danilo Avola ◽  
Marco Ferrari ◽  
Daniela Iacoviello ◽  
Andrea Petracca ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Real Time ◽  
Postural Stability ◽  
Low Cost ◽  
Stability Assessment ◽  
Virtual System ◽  
At Home

Signal stationarity in postural stability assessment of children

1992 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 57-58 ◽  
Author(s):  
G.F. Harris ◽  
S.A. Riedel ◽  
D.V. Matesi ◽  
P.A. Smith
Keyword(s):  
Postural Stability ◽  
Stability Assessment

The effect of foam surface properties on postural stability assessment while standing

2008 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 649-656 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Patel ◽  
P.A. Fransson ◽  
D. Lush ◽  
S. Gomez
Keyword(s):  
Surface Properties ◽  
Postural Stability ◽  
Stability Assessment
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document