alexa Comparison and evaluation of two common methods to measure center of mass displacement in three dimensions during gait.
Physicaltherapy & Rehabilitation

Physicaltherapy & Rehabilitation

Journal of Physiotherapy & Physical Rehabilitation

Author(s): GutierrezFarewik EM, Bartonek A, Saraste H

Abstract Share this page

Abstract Center of mass displacement during gait has frequently been used as an indicator of gait efficiency or as a complement to standard gait analysis. With technological advances, measuring the center of mass as the centroid of a multi-segment system is practical and feasible, but must first be compared to the well-established Newtonian computation of double-integrating the ground reaction force. This study aims to verify that the kinematic centroid obtained from a commonly-used model (Vicon Peak Plug-In-Gait) provides at least as reliable measurements of center of mass displacement as those obtained from the ground reaction forces. Gait data was collected for able-bodied children and children with myelomeningocele who use larger lateral center of mass excursions during gait. Reasonable agreement between methods was found in fore-aft and vertical directions, where the methods' excursions differed by an average of less than 10 mm in either direction, and the average RMS differences between methods' computed curves were 6 and 13 mm. Particularly good agreement was observed in the lateral direction, where the calculated excursions differed by an average of less than 2 mm and the RMS difference was 5 mm. Error analyses in computing the center of mass displacement from ground reaction forces were performed. A 5\% deviation in mass estimation increased the computed vertical excursion twofold, and a 5\% deviation in the integration constant of initial velocity increased the computed fore-aft excursions by 10\%. The suitability of calculating center of mass displacement using ground reaction forces in a patient population is questioned. The kinematic centroid is susceptible to errors in segment parameters and marker placement, but results in plausible results that are at least within the range of doubt of the better-established ground reaction force integration, and are more useful when interpreting 3-D gait data. This article was published in Hum Mov Sci and referenced in Journal of Physiotherapy & Physical Rehabilitation

Relevant Expert PPTs

Relevant Speaker PPTs

Peer Reviewed Journals
Make the best use of Scientific Research and information from our 700 + peer reviewed, Open Access Journals
International Conferences 2017-18
Meet Inspiring Speakers and Experts at our 3000+ Global Annual Meetings

Contact Us

Agri, Food, Aqua and Veterinary Science Journals

Dr. Krish

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9040

Clinical and Biochemistry Journals

Datta A

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9037

Business & Management Journals


1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

Chemical Engineering and Chemistry Journals

Gabriel Shaw

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9040

Earth & Environmental Sciences

Katie Wilson

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

Engineering Journals

James Franklin

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

General Science and Health care Journals

Andrea Jason

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9043

Genetics and Molecular Biology Journals

Anna Melissa

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9006

Immunology & Microbiology Journals

David Gorantl

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9014

Informatics Journals

Stephanie Skinner

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9039

Material Sciences Journals

Rachle Green

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9039

Mathematics and Physics Journals

Jim Willison

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9042

Medical Journals

Nimmi Anna

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9038

Neuroscience & Psychology Journals

Nathan T

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9041

Pharmaceutical Sciences Journals

John Behannon

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9007

Social & Political Science Journals

Steve Harry

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9042

© 2008-2017 OMICS International - Open Access Publisher. Best viewed in Mozilla Firefox | Google Chrome | Above IE 7.0 version