Limits...
Self-selected gait speed--over ground versus self-paced treadmill walking, a solution for a paradox.

Plotnik M, Azrad T, Bondi M, Bahat Y, Gimmon Y, Zeilig G, Inzelberg R, Siev-Ner I - J Neuroeng Rehabil (2015)

Bottom Line: We compared over ground walking vs.Gait speed was compared across conditions for four 10 m long segments (7.5 - 17.5, 30.5 - 40.5, 55.5 - 65.5 and 78.5-88.5 m).We propose that the gait research community joins forces to standardize the use of SP TMs, e.g., by unifying protocols or gathering normative data.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Center of Advanced Technologies in Rehabilitation, Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, Israel. meir.plotnik@sheba.health.gov.il.

ABSTRACT

Background: The study of gait at self-selected speed is important. Traditional gait laboratories being relatively limited in space provide insufficient path length, while treadmill (TM) walking compromises natural gait by imposing speed variables. Self-paced (SP) walking can be realized on TM using feedback-controlled belt speed. We compared over ground walking vs. SP TM in two self-selected gait speed experiments: without visual flow, and while subjects were immersed in a virtual reality (VR) environment inducing natural visual flow.

Methods: Young healthy subjects walked 96 meters at self-selected comfortable speed, first over ground and then on the SP TM without (n=15), and with VR visual flow (n=11). Gait speed was compared across conditions for four 10 m long segments (7.5 - 17.5, 30.5 - 40.5, 55.5 - 65.5 and 78.5-88.5 m).

Results: During over ground walking mean (± SD) gait speed was equal for both experimental groups (1.50 ± 0.13 m/s). Without visual flow, gait speed over SP TM was smaller in the first and second epochs as compared to over ground (first: 1.15 ±0.18 vs. second: 1.53 ± 0.13 m/s; p<0.05), and was comparable in the third and fourth (1.45 ± 0.19 vs. 1.49 ± 0.15 m/s; p>0.3). With visual flow, gait speed became comparable to that of over ground performance already in the first epoch (1.43 ± 0.22 m/s; p>0.17). Curve fitting analyses estimated that steady state velocity in SP TM walking is reached after shorter distanced passed with visual flow (24.6 ± 14.7 m) versus without (36.5 ± 18.7 m, not statistically significant; p=0.097). Steady state velocity was estimated to be higher in the presence of visual flow (1.61 ± 0.17 m/s) versus its absence (1.42 ± 1.19 m/s; p<0.05).

Conclusions: The SP TM walking is a reliable method for recording typical self-selected gait speed, provided that sufficient distance is first passed for reaching steady state. Seemingly, in the presence of VR visual flow, steady state of gait speed is reached faster. We propose that the gait research community joins forces to standardize the use of SP TMs, e.g., by unifying protocols or gathering normative data.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Scheme describing the path performed by the subjects during over-ground testing. The subjects walked back and forth in the corridor. The red bars indicate the 10 m marks. These marks were distanced 7.5 and 6.5 m from edges A and B, respectively. Thus, in terms of distance covered, timing of 10 m walking occurred between 7.5 – 17.5 m, 30.5 – 40.5 m, 55.5 – 65.5 m and 78.5- 88.5 m of the overall 96 m walked. Thick black arrow indicates the location of the experimenter.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4374285&req=5

Fig2: Scheme describing the path performed by the subjects during over-ground testing. The subjects walked back and forth in the corridor. The red bars indicate the 10 m marks. These marks were distanced 7.5 and 6.5 m from edges A and B, respectively. Thus, in terms of distance covered, timing of 10 m walking occurred between 7.5 – 17.5 m, 30.5 – 40.5 m, 55.5 – 65.5 m and 78.5- 88.5 m of the overall 96 m walked. Thick black arrow indicates the location of the experimenter.

Mentions: The subjects were asked to walk continuously back and forth (without stopping) between the edges of a 24 m long corridor (Figure 2; starting from point A walking towards point B) in their own comfortable self-selected pace until they will be asked to stop. The experimenter used a stop watch to time the duration by which a distance of 10 m (pre- marked by small marks on the lower part of the walls) was walked. After returning in the second time to point A, the subjects were informed that the measurement ended.Figure 2


Self-selected gait speed--over ground versus self-paced treadmill walking, a solution for a paradox.

Plotnik M, Azrad T, Bondi M, Bahat Y, Gimmon Y, Zeilig G, Inzelberg R, Siev-Ner I - J Neuroeng Rehabil (2015)

Scheme describing the path performed by the subjects during over-ground testing. The subjects walked back and forth in the corridor. The red bars indicate the 10 m marks. These marks were distanced 7.5 and 6.5 m from edges A and B, respectively. Thus, in terms of distance covered, timing of 10 m walking occurred between 7.5 – 17.5 m, 30.5 – 40.5 m, 55.5 – 65.5 m and 78.5- 88.5 m of the overall 96 m walked. Thick black arrow indicates the location of the experimenter.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4374285&req=5

Fig2: Scheme describing the path performed by the subjects during over-ground testing. The subjects walked back and forth in the corridor. The red bars indicate the 10 m marks. These marks were distanced 7.5 and 6.5 m from edges A and B, respectively. Thus, in terms of distance covered, timing of 10 m walking occurred between 7.5 – 17.5 m, 30.5 – 40.5 m, 55.5 – 65.5 m and 78.5- 88.5 m of the overall 96 m walked. Thick black arrow indicates the location of the experimenter.
Mentions: The subjects were asked to walk continuously back and forth (without stopping) between the edges of a 24 m long corridor (Figure 2; starting from point A walking towards point B) in their own comfortable self-selected pace until they will be asked to stop. The experimenter used a stop watch to time the duration by which a distance of 10 m (pre- marked by small marks on the lower part of the walls) was walked. After returning in the second time to point A, the subjects were informed that the measurement ended.Figure 2

Bottom Line: We compared over ground walking vs.Gait speed was compared across conditions for four 10 m long segments (7.5 - 17.5, 30.5 - 40.5, 55.5 - 65.5 and 78.5-88.5 m).We propose that the gait research community joins forces to standardize the use of SP TMs, e.g., by unifying protocols or gathering normative data.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Center of Advanced Technologies in Rehabilitation, Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, Israel. meir.plotnik@sheba.health.gov.il.

ABSTRACT

Background: The study of gait at self-selected speed is important. Traditional gait laboratories being relatively limited in space provide insufficient path length, while treadmill (TM) walking compromises natural gait by imposing speed variables. Self-paced (SP) walking can be realized on TM using feedback-controlled belt speed. We compared over ground walking vs. SP TM in two self-selected gait speed experiments: without visual flow, and while subjects were immersed in a virtual reality (VR) environment inducing natural visual flow.

Methods: Young healthy subjects walked 96 meters at self-selected comfortable speed, first over ground and then on the SP TM without (n=15), and with VR visual flow (n=11). Gait speed was compared across conditions for four 10 m long segments (7.5 - 17.5, 30.5 - 40.5, 55.5 - 65.5 and 78.5-88.5 m).

Results: During over ground walking mean (± SD) gait speed was equal for both experimental groups (1.50 ± 0.13 m/s). Without visual flow, gait speed over SP TM was smaller in the first and second epochs as compared to over ground (first: 1.15 ±0.18 vs. second: 1.53 ± 0.13 m/s; p<0.05), and was comparable in the third and fourth (1.45 ± 0.19 vs. 1.49 ± 0.15 m/s; p>0.3). With visual flow, gait speed became comparable to that of over ground performance already in the first epoch (1.43 ± 0.22 m/s; p>0.17). Curve fitting analyses estimated that steady state velocity in SP TM walking is reached after shorter distanced passed with visual flow (24.6 ± 14.7 m) versus without (36.5 ± 18.7 m, not statistically significant; p=0.097). Steady state velocity was estimated to be higher in the presence of visual flow (1.61 ± 0.17 m/s) versus its absence (1.42 ± 1.19 m/s; p<0.05).

Conclusions: The SP TM walking is a reliable method for recording typical self-selected gait speed, provided that sufficient distance is first passed for reaching steady state. Seemingly, in the presence of VR visual flow, steady state of gait speed is reached faster. We propose that the gait research community joins forces to standardize the use of SP TMs, e.g., by unifying protocols or gathering normative data.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus