The variability of dual-task walking parameters using in-shoe inertial sensors in nonconcussed individuals: A randomized within-subject repeated measures design.
concussion
gait
inertial measurement unit
Journal
Health science reports
ISSN: 2398-8835
Titre abrégé: Health Sci Rep
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101728855
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Oct 2023
Oct 2023
Historique:
received:
06
03
2023
revised:
08
10
2023
accepted:
11
10
2023
medline:
30
10
2023
pubmed:
30
10
2023
entrez:
30
10
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
There is a need for high utility and portability, and cost-effective technologies that are suitable for assessing dual-task gait after experiencing a concussion. Current technologies utilized such as 3D motion capture and force plates are too complex and expensive for most practitioners. The aim of this study was to quantify the variability of dual-task walking gait parameters using in-shoe inertial sensors in nonconcussed individuals. This was a randomized within-subject repeated measures design conducted within a sports laboratory. Twenty healthy, uninjured, nonconcussed participants were recruited for this study. Gait variables of interest were measured across three 2-min continuous walking protocols (12 m, 30 m, 1 min out and back) while performing a cognitive task of counting backward in sevens from a randomly generated number between 300 and 500. Testing was completed over three occasions separated by 7 days, for a total of nine walking trials. Participants completed the testing protocols in a randomized, individual order. The primary outcome was to determine the variability of dual-task walking gait parameters using in-shoe inertial sensors in nonconcussed individuals across three protocols. Three to four participants were allocated to each randomized protocol order. Regarding the absolute consistency (coefficient of variation [CV]) between testing occasions, no gait measure was found to have variability above 6.5%. Relative consistency (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC]) was acceptable (>0.70) in 95% of the variables of interest, with only three variables < 0.70. Similar variability was found across the three testing protocols. In-shoe inertial sensors provide a viable option for monitoring gait parameters. This technology is also reliable across different testing distances, thus offering various testing options for practitioners. Further research needs to be conducted to examine the variability with concussed subjects.
Sections du résumé
Background and Aims
UNASSIGNED
There is a need for high utility and portability, and cost-effective technologies that are suitable for assessing dual-task gait after experiencing a concussion. Current technologies utilized such as 3D motion capture and force plates are too complex and expensive for most practitioners. The aim of this study was to quantify the variability of dual-task walking gait parameters using in-shoe inertial sensors in nonconcussed individuals.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
This was a randomized within-subject repeated measures design conducted within a sports laboratory. Twenty healthy, uninjured, nonconcussed participants were recruited for this study. Gait variables of interest were measured across three 2-min continuous walking protocols (12 m, 30 m, 1 min out and back) while performing a cognitive task of counting backward in sevens from a randomly generated number between 300 and 500. Testing was completed over three occasions separated by 7 days, for a total of nine walking trials. Participants completed the testing protocols in a randomized, individual order. The primary outcome was to determine the variability of dual-task walking gait parameters using in-shoe inertial sensors in nonconcussed individuals across three protocols.
Results
UNASSIGNED
Three to four participants were allocated to each randomized protocol order. Regarding the absolute consistency (coefficient of variation [CV]) between testing occasions, no gait measure was found to have variability above 6.5%. Relative consistency (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC]) was acceptable (>0.70) in 95% of the variables of interest, with only three variables < 0.70. Similar variability was found across the three testing protocols.
Conclusion
UNASSIGNED
In-shoe inertial sensors provide a viable option for monitoring gait parameters. This technology is also reliable across different testing distances, thus offering various testing options for practitioners. Further research needs to be conducted to examine the variability with concussed subjects.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37900093
doi: 10.1002/hsr2.1660
pii: HSR21660
pmc: PMC10600336
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e1660Informations de copyright
© 2023 The Authors. Health Science Reports published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Références
Exp Brain Res. 2007 Jan;176(1):23-31
pubmed: 16826411
Gait Posture. 2007 Mar;25(3):406-11
pubmed: 16787746
World Neurosurg. 2016 Nov;95:601-602
pubmed: 27113400
J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2013 Jul-Aug;28(4):293-301
pubmed: 22495102
J Biomech. 2015 Sep 18;48(12):3364-8
pubmed: 26152463
J Sports Sci. 2013;31(12):1332-43
pubmed: 23656211
IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2013 Jan;60(1):155-8
pubmed: 23268531
J Neurotrauma. 2021 Jan 15;38(2):218-224
pubmed: 32495691
Sports (Basel). 2018 Aug 09;6(3):
pubmed: 30096881
J Strength Cond Res. 2018 Jul;32(7):1892-1901
pubmed: 29547490
J Biomech. 2016 Jun 14;49(9):1983-1988
pubmed: 27207386
IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2005 Mar;52(3):486-94
pubmed: 15759579
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2014 Aug;95(8):1594-7
pubmed: 24726561
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2013 Aug;94(8):1513-20
pubmed: 23643687
Sports Med. 2000 Jul;30(1):1-15
pubmed: 10907753
Gait Posture. 2013 Sep;38(4):717-22
pubmed: 23578796
Med Eng Phys. 2008 Oct;30(8):959-67
pubmed: 18243036
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023 Mar 22;20(6):
pubmed: 36982135
Gait Posture. 2018 Jul;64:260-265
pubmed: 29966907
J Chiropr Med. 2016 Jun;15(2):155-63
pubmed: 27330520
J Appl Biomech. 2017 Feb;33(1):24-31
pubmed: 27705076
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2009 Sep 21;6:35
pubmed: 19772593
Gait Posture. 2016 Sep;49:176-180
pubmed: 27427835
Mhealth. 2022 Jan 20;8:9
pubmed: 35178440
J Sci Med Sport. 2018 Apr;21(4):358-362
pubmed: 28919121
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2011 Apr;92(4):585-9
pubmed: 21440703
Br J Sports Med. 2017 Jun;51(11):838-847
pubmed: 28446457
J Appl Biomech. 2019 May 29;35(4):290-296
pubmed: 31141425
Sports Med. 2018 May;48(5):1097-1115
pubmed: 29453743
Res Q Exerc Sport. 2008 Jun;79(2):261-7
pubmed: 18664050
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008 Dec;89(12):2360-5
pubmed: 19061748
Phys Ther. 2015 Mar;95(3):461-70
pubmed: 25504484
J Sci Med Sport. 2017 Jul;20(7):622-626
pubmed: 28169147
Gerontology. 2018;64(1):74-89
pubmed: 29130977
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2005 May;20(4):389-95
pubmed: 15737446
Sensors (Basel). 2023 Feb 10;23(4):
pubmed: 36850597
Gait Posture. 2016 Sep;49:264-270
pubmed: 27472823
BMJ. 2019 Jul 31;366:l4378
pubmed: 31366597
Front Physiol. 2020 Feb 20;11:90
pubmed: 32153420
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2019 Apr;100(4):613-619
pubmed: 30193950
Front Hum Neurosci. 2017 Aug 03;11:353
pubmed: 28824393
J Biomech. 2010 Nov 16;43(15):2999-3006
pubmed: 20656291
Exp Brain Res. 2014 Jun;232(6):1773-82
pubmed: 24531643
Sports Med. 2017 May;47(5):1003-1010
pubmed: 27544666