— Several studies have demonstrated beneficial effects of real-time biofeedback for improving postural control.
However, the application for daily activities, which also include
postural transitions, is still limited. One crucial aspect is the
time point of providing feedback, and thus its reliability. This
might depend on the sensor system used, but also on how the
threshold is defined. This study investigates which wearable
sensor system and what kind of threshold is more reliable in a
situation of a postural transition.
To this end, we compared three sensor systems regarding
their accuracy in timing in a stable and unstable postural
transition in 16 healthy young adults: a multiple Inertial
Measurement Unit system (IMU), a pressure Insoles System
(IS), and a combination of both systems (COMB). Further, we
contrasted two threshold parameters for each system: a Quiet
Standing-based threshold (QSth) and a Limits of Stability-based
threshold (LoSth).
Two-way repeated measures ANOVAs and Wilcoxon tests
(α = 0.05) indicated highest accuracy in the COMB LoSth,
though with small differences to the IS LoSth. The LoSth showed
more accurate timing than the QSth, especially in medio-lateral
direction for IS and COMB.
Consequently, for providing a reliable timing for a potential
biofeedback applied by a wearable device in everyday life
situations applications should focus on pressure insoles and a
functional stability threshold, such as the LoS-based threshold.
«
— Several studies have demonstrated beneficial effects of real-time biofeedback for improving postural control.
However, the application for daily activities, which also include
postural transitions, is still limited. One crucial aspect is the
time point of providing feedback, and thus its reliability. This
might depend on the sensor system used, but also on how the
threshold is defined. This study investigates which wearable
sensor system and what kind of threshold is more reliable in a...
»
Login
BibTeX