The comparison of stepping responses following perturbations applied to pelvis during overground and treadmill walking

Article type: Research Article

Authors: Zadravec, Matjaž^* | Olenšek, Andrej | Matjačić, Zlatko

Affiliations: University Rehabilitation Institute, Ljubljana, Republic of Slovenia

Correspondence: [*] Corresponding author: Matjaž Zadravec, University Rehabilitation Institute, Linhartova 51, SI-1000 Ljubljana, Republic of Slovenia. Tel.: +386 1 47 58 206; E-mail: matjaz.zadravec@ir-rs.si.

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Treadmills are used frequently in rehabilitation enabling neurologically impaired subjects to train walking while being assisted by therapists. Numerous studies compared walking on treadmill and overground for unperturbed but not also perturbed conditions. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare stepping responses (step length, step width and step time) during overground and treadmill walking in a group of healthy subjects where balance assessment robots applied perturbing pushes to the subject’s pelvis in sagittal and frontal planes. METHODS: During walking in both balance assessment robots (overground and treadmill-based) with applied perturbations the stepping responses of a group of seven healthy subjects were assessed with a motion tracking camera. RESULTS: The results show high degree of similarity of stepping responses between overground and treadmill walking for all perturbation directions. Both devices reproduced similar experimental conditions with relatively small standard deviations in the unperturbed walking as well as in perturbed walking. CONCLUSIONS: Based on these results we may conclude that stepping responses following perturbations can be studied on an instrumented treadmill where ground reaction forces can be readily assessed which is not the case during perturbed overground walking.

Keywords: Balance assessment robot, stepping responses, pelvis perturbations, treadmill walking, overground walking

DOI: 10.3233/THC-160798

Journal: Technology and Health Care, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 781-790, 2017