Korean Journal of Applied Biomechanics (한국운동역학회지)

Korean Society of Applied Biomechanics (한국운동역학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Accuracy and Reliability of Ground Reaction Force System and Effect of Force Platform Mounting and Environment

지면반력장비의 정밀성, 신뢰도와 장비설치.사용 환경의 영향

  • Published : 2007.03.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Ground reaction force (GRF) measures are one of the most commonly used in biomechanical study. GRF system is very useful educational tool to explain and demonstrate the Newton's law of universal gravitation and laws of motion as well. However, accuracy, intra- and inter- force platform measures' consistency, reliability, noise, and the effect of platform mounting to GRF measures were not clearly viewed. The aim of this study was to examine the above. GRFs of a plastic dummy and two subjects' quiet upright standing were collected at four university laboratories eight force platforms. The types of platforms, analysis programs, and platform set-up were various. Three 100s-trials were conducted with sampling frequency of 100 Hz. First two trials' vertical component of GRFs, Fz, and CoP sway ranges of mid-60s-portion of 100s trials were analyzed by the paired t-tests and one-way ANOVA. Six of eight platforms' 1st and 2nd trial dummy Fz were statistically different (p<.05) and all platforms ICC were poor (<.28). Fz of the two platforms in every four laboratories were statistically different (p<.05). There were white noises and/or very distinctive noises at specific frequency ranges in all Fz measures. 5 Hz low-pass filtering made clear the Fz differences. CoP ranges of dummy were less than 0.5 cm and the best was 0.02 cm. This CoP range finding agrees with previous results suggests the importance of force platform mounting and A/D card resolution.

Keywords

References

  1. Bertec (2006). Force Plate Manual. Columbus, OH: Bertec Corporation.
  2. Cappozzo, A., Croce, U. D., Leardini, A., & Chiari, L. (2005). Human movement analysis using stereophotogrammetry part 1: theoretical background. Gait and Posture, 21. 186-196.
  3. Collins, J. J., & De Luca, C. J. (1993). Open-loop and closed-lop control of posture: a random-walk analysis of center-of-pressure trajectories. Experimental Brain Research, 95. 308-318. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00229788
  4. Corriveau, H., Hebert, R., Prince, F., & Raiche, M. (2001). Postural control in the elderly: an analysis of test-retest and interrater reliability of the COP-COM variable. Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 82. 80-85. https://doi.org/10.1053/apmr.2001.18678
  5. Doyle, T. L., Dugan, E., Humphries, B., & Newton, R. U. (2004). Discriminating between elderly and young using a fractal dimension analysis of center of pressure. Int. J. Med. Sci. 1. 11-20.
  6. Doyle, T. L., Newton, R. U., & Burnett, A. F. (2005). Reliability of traditional and fractal dimension measures of quiet stance center of pressure in young, healthy people. Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 86. 2034-2040. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2005.05.014
  7. Doyle, R. J., Hsiao-Wecksler, E. T., Ragan, B. G., & Rosengren, K. S. (2006). Generalizability of center of pressure measures of quiet standing. Gait and Posture, In Press.
  8. England, S. A., & Granata, K. P. (2006). The influence of gait speed on local dynamic stability of walking. Gait and Posture, In press.
  9. Ferdjallah, M., Harris, G. F., & Wertsch, J. J. (1999). Instantaneous postural stability characterization using time-frequency analysis. Gait and Posture, 10. 129-134. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0966-6362(99)00023-5
  10. Harbourne, R. T., & Stergoiu, N. (2003). Nonlinear analysis of the development of sitting postural control. Dev Psychobiol, 42. 368-377. https://doi.org/10.1002/dev.10110
  11. Hume, P. A., Keogh, J., & Reid, D. (2005). The role of biomechanics in maximising distance and accuracy of golf shots. Sports Medicine, 35(5). 429-449. https://doi.org/10.2165/00007256-200535050-00005
  12. Korad, P. (2005). Kinesiological EMG. Phoenix, AZ; Noraxon
  13. Lafond, D., Corriveau, H., Hebert, R., & Prince, F. (2004). Intrasession reliability of center of pressure measures of postural steadiness in health elderly people. Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 85. 896-901. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2003.08.089
  14. Lafond, D., Duarte, M., & Prince, F. (2004). Comparison of three methods to estimate the center of mass during balance assessment. Journal of Biomechanics, 37. 1421-1426. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0021-9290(03)00251-3
  15. Marey, M. (1873). De la locomotion terrestre chez les bipedes et les quadrupedes. Journal de l'Anat. et de la physiology, 9. 42.
  16. Nolan, L., & Kerrigan, D. C. (2004). Postural control: toe-standing versus heel-toe standing. Gait and Posture, 19. 11-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0966-6362(03)00007-9
  17. Onell, A. (2000). The vertical ground reaction force for analysis of balance? Gait and Posture, 12. 7-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0966-6362(00)00053-9
  18. Parker, K. (2001). Use of force platforms in physics and sports. Physics Education, 11, 18-22.
  19. Prieto, T. E., Myklebust, J. B., Hoffmann, R. G., Lovett, E. G., & Myklebust, B. M. (1996). Measures of postural steadiness: differences between healthy young and elderly adults. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, 43(9). 956-966. https://doi.org/10.1109/10.532130
  20. Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychology Bulletin, 86. 420-428. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.420
  21. Stergiou, N. (2004). Innovative analysis of human movement. Champaign, IL; Human Kinetics.
  22. Winter, D. A. (1995). A.B.C. of balance during standing and walking. Waterloo, Ontario: Waterloo Biomechanics.
  23. Yamada, N. (1995). Chaotic swaying of the upright posture. Human Movement Science, 14. 711-726. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-9457(95)00032-1