Validity of force platform measures for stance stability under varying sensory conditions.

M H Hu, Y C Hung, Y L Huang, C D Peng, S S Shen
{"title":"Validity of force platform measures for stance stability under varying sensory conditions.","authors":"M H Hu,&nbsp;Y C Hung,&nbsp;Y L Huang,&nbsp;C D Peng,&nbsp;S S Shen","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Maintaining stance stability under varying sensory environment is an essential function in the elderly and among patients. Testing sensory organization ability of standing balance, the Sensory Organization Test (SOT), has become a standard procedure in many clinical and laboratory settings. The stance stability can be quantified by two forceplate measures in the SOT: the equilibrium score (ES) and the sway area (SA). This study compares the validity of the ES and the SA in detecting gender, trial, and sensory effects on stability in twenty (ten male, ten female) healthy young adults. Subjects were tested under six sensory conditions: eyes open (EO), eyes closed (EC), sway-referenced vision (Vs), sway-referenced support surface (Ss), eyes closed sway-referenced support surface (ECSs), and sway-referenced visual surround and support surface (VsSs). A visual surround and/or the support surface were tilted proportionately to the subject's spontaneous sway in the sway-referenced conditions. Three trials, 20-second for each trial, were repeated for each sensory condition. Above results demonstrated that the Pearson correlation coefficients between the ES and the SA were all highly significant (p < .0001) except for the first trial of the EO condition. The consistencies in which the two measures discriminated among sensory conditions were tested by the Kendall's coefficient of concordance. The Kendall's coefficient for the ES (W = .843) and the SA (W = .866) were high and similar. Separate ANOVA procedure for the ES and SA revealed that both measures satisfactorily detected a significant sensory condition and trial effects and insignificant gender effect. We can conclude that ES and SA are valid measures of stance stability during the SOT. Our results confirm that healthy young adults have a poorer postural stability when the visual and somatosensory inputs are simultaneously altered. Moreover, the learning effect is observed during repeated trials within test conditions.</p>","PeriodicalId":20569,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the National Science Council, Republic of China. Part B, Life sciences","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1996-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the National Science Council, Republic of China. Part B, Life sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Maintaining stance stability under varying sensory environment is an essential function in the elderly and among patients. Testing sensory organization ability of standing balance, the Sensory Organization Test (SOT), has become a standard procedure in many clinical and laboratory settings. The stance stability can be quantified by two forceplate measures in the SOT: the equilibrium score (ES) and the sway area (SA). This study compares the validity of the ES and the SA in detecting gender, trial, and sensory effects on stability in twenty (ten male, ten female) healthy young adults. Subjects were tested under six sensory conditions: eyes open (EO), eyes closed (EC), sway-referenced vision (Vs), sway-referenced support surface (Ss), eyes closed sway-referenced support surface (ECSs), and sway-referenced visual surround and support surface (VsSs). A visual surround and/or the support surface were tilted proportionately to the subject's spontaneous sway in the sway-referenced conditions. Three trials, 20-second for each trial, were repeated for each sensory condition. Above results demonstrated that the Pearson correlation coefficients between the ES and the SA were all highly significant (p < .0001) except for the first trial of the EO condition. The consistencies in which the two measures discriminated among sensory conditions were tested by the Kendall's coefficient of concordance. The Kendall's coefficient for the ES (W = .843) and the SA (W = .866) were high and similar. Separate ANOVA procedure for the ES and SA revealed that both measures satisfactorily detected a significant sensory condition and trial effects and insignificant gender effect. We can conclude that ES and SA are valid measures of stance stability during the SOT. Our results confirm that healthy young adults have a poorer postural stability when the visual and somatosensory inputs are simultaneously altered. Moreover, the learning effect is observed during repeated trials within test conditions.

力平台测量在不同感官条件下姿态稳定性的有效性。
在不同的感觉环境下保持姿势的稳定性是老年人和患者的基本功能。测试站立平衡的感觉组织能力,感觉组织测试(SOT),已经成为许多临床和实验室设置的标准程序。姿态稳定性可以通过两种力板测量来量化:平衡分数(ES)和摇摆面积(SA)。本研究比较了20名健康青年(男、女各10名)的ES和SA在检测性别、试验和稳定性的感觉效应方面的有效性。受试者在六种感官条件下进行测试:睁眼(EO)、闭眼(EC)、摇摆参考视觉(Vs)、摇摆参考支撑面(Ss)、闭眼摇摆参考支撑面(ECSs)和摇摆参考视觉周围和支撑面(vss)。在摇摆参考条件下,视觉环绕和/或支撑表面与受试者的自发摇摆成比例倾斜。对每种感觉条件重复进行三次试验,每次试验20秒。以上结果表明,除了第一次试验的EO条件外,ES与SA之间的Pearson相关系数均为极显著(p < 0.0001)。通过肯德尔的一致性系数检验了这两种测量方法在感官条件下的一致性。ES (W = .843)和SA (W = .866)的肯德尔系数较高且相似。对ES和SA进行单独的方差分析显示,这两个测量都令人满意地检测到显著的感觉条件和试验效应,而性别效应不显著。我们可以得出结论,在SOT过程中,ES和SA是有效的姿态稳定性测量。我们的研究结果证实,当视觉和体感输入同时改变时,健康的年轻人的姿势稳定性较差。此外,在测试条件下的重复试验中观察了学习效果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信