| Title |
Trunk Reaction Time and Kinematic Changes Following Slip Perturbations in Subjects with Recurrent Low Back Pain
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Annals of Biomedical Engineering, January 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10439-017-1972-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Paul S. Sung, Pamela Danial |
| Abstract |
Postural responses following slip perturbations are critical to fall prevention strategies. It is unclear how postural reactions with a handheld task can validly be transferred to treadmill-induced slip perturbations in subjects with recurrent low back pain (LBP). The purpose of this study was to investigate trunk reaction times and trunk flexion angle as well as velocity following the slips between subjects with and without LBP. There were 29 subjects with LBP and 40 control subjects who participated in the study. Three levels of consecutive treadmill-induced slip perturbations were introduced at level 1 (duration: 0.10 s, velocity: 0.24 m/s, displacement: 1.20 cm), level 2 (0.12 s, 0.72 m/s, 4.32 cm), and level 3 (0.12 s, 1.37 m/s, 8.22 cm). The trunk reaction time, swing/step times, and trunk flexion angle as well as velocity at heel strike/toe-off were compared between the groups. There were significantly longer trunk reaction times (t = - 2.03, p = 0.04), swing times (t = - 2.63, p = 0.01), and step times (t = - 2.53, p = 0.01) in the LBP group at the level 1 slip perturbation. The groups demonstrated a significant interaction between the levels and trunk flexion angles (F = 4.72, p = 0.03), but there was no interaction between the levels and trunk flexion velocities (F = 0.07, p = 0.79). The LBP group demonstrated longer reaction times at the level 1 perturbation due to a possible pain recurrence. However, this compensatory tolerance was limited at the level 3 perturbation due to increased trunk flexion angle at heel strike and toe-off in the LBP group. Clinicians may consider a compensatory strategy to improve reaction time and minimize trunk flexion following slip perturbations in patients with LBP. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 56 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 8 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 14% |
| Researcher | 7 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 13% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 8 | 14% |
| Unknown | 16 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 12 | 21% |
| Sports and Recreations | 10 | 18% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 13% |
| Psychology | 2 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 5 | 9% |
| Unknown | 19 | 34% |