Inertial Sensor Technology Can Capture Changes in Dynamic Balance Control during the Y Balance Test
|Title:||Inertial Sensor Technology Can Capture Changes in Dynamic Balance Control during the Y Balance Test||Authors:||Johnston, William; O'Reilly, Martin; Coughlan, Garrett; Caulfield, Brian||Permanent link:||http://hdl.handle.net/10197/9354||Date:||2017||Online since:||2018-05-04T11:31:00Z||Abstract:||Introduction: The Y Balance Test (YBT) is one of the most commonly utilised clinical dynamicbalance assessments. Research has demonstrated the utility of the YBT in identifying balancedeficits in individuals following lower limb injury. However, quantifying dynamic balancebased on reach distances alone fails to provide potentially important information related tothe quality of movement control and choice of movement strategy during the reaching action.The addition of an inertial sensor to capture more detailed motion data may allow for the inexpensive,accessible quantification of dynamic balance control during the YBT reach excursions.As such, the aim of this study was to compare baseline and fatigued dynamic balancecontrol, using reach distances and 95EV (95% ellipsoid volume), and evaluate the ability of95EV to capture alterations in dynamic balance control, which are not detected by YBT reachdistances. Methods: As part of this descriptive laboratory study, 15 healthy participants completedrepeated YBTs at 20, 10, and 0 min prior to and following a modified 60-s Wingate testthat was used to introduce a short-term reduction in dynamic balance capability. Dynamicbalance was assessed using the standard normalised reach distance method, while dynamicbalance control during the reach attempts was simultaneously measured by means of the95EV derived from an inertial sensor, worn at the level of the 4th lumbar vertebra. Results:Intraclass correlation coefficients for the inertial sensor-derived measures ranged from 0.76to 0.92, demonstrating strong intrasession test-retest reliability. Statistically significant altera-tions (p < 0.05) in both reach distance and the inertial sensor-derived 95EV measure wereobserved immediately post-fatigue. However, reach distance deficits returned to baseline levelswithin 10 min, while 95EV remained significantly increased (p < 0.05) beyond 20 min forall 3 reach distances. Conclusion: These findings demonstrate the ability of an inertial sensorderivedmeasure to quantify alterations in dynamic balance control, which are not capturedby traditional reach distances alone. This suggests that the addition of an inertial sensor tothe YBT may provide clinicians and researchers with an accessible means to capture subtlealterations in motor function in the clinical setting.||Funding Details:||Science Foundation Ireland||Type of material:||Journal Article||Publisher:||Karger||Journal:||Digital Biomarkers||Volume:||1||Issue:||2||Start page:||106||End page:||117||Copyright (published version):||2018 the Authors||Keywords:||Personal Sensing; Dynamic balance; Wearable sensors; Inertial sensor; Y balance test||DOI:||10.1159/000485470||Language:||en||Status of Item:||Peer reviewed||This item is made available under a Creative Commons License:||https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ie/|
|Appears in Collections:||Public Health, Physiotherapy and Sports Science Research Collection|
Insight Research Collection
Show full item record
If you are a publisher or author and have copyright concerns for any item, please email firstname.lastname@example.org and the item will be withdrawn immediately. The author or person responsible for depositing the article will be contacted within one business day.