The accuracy of rapid treadmill-belt movements as a means to deliver standing postural perturbations

Treadmill-based system for postural studies: Design and validation

Computer-controlled treadmills are common in many gait labs and offer great potential for conducting perturbation-based postural studies. However, the time-course of these disturbances can be too brief to be controlled manually through product software. Here we present a system that combines a Bertec® split-belt treadmill with custom hardware and software to deliver postural disturbances during standing and record data from multiple sources simultaneously. We used this system to administer to 15 healthy participants an 8-session perturbation-based training protocol in which they learned to respond without stepping to progressively larger perturbations. Kinematic, electromyographic, and force data were collected throughout. Motion capture was used to characterize the accuracy and repeatability of the treadmill-delivered perturbations with respect to duration, displacement, and peak velocity. These (observed) data were compared to that expected based on software commands and the known constraints of the treadmill (i.e., 10 Hz operating speed). We found perturbation durations to be as expected. Peak velocities and displacements were slightly higher than expected (average increases were 0.59 cm/s and 1.76 cm, respectively). Because this increase in magnitude was consistent, it did not impede training or affect data analysis. Treadmill behavior was repeatable across 95 % of trials.

A Perturbed Postural Balance Test Using an Instrumented Treadmill - Precision and Accuracy of Belt Movement and Test-Retest Reliability of Balance Measures

A perturbed postural balance test can be used to investigate balance control under mechanical disturbances. The test is typically performed using purpose-built movable force plates. As instrumented treadmills become increasingly common in biomechanics laboratories and in clinical settings, these devices could be potentially used to assess and train balance control. The purpose of the study was to investigate how an instrumented treadmill applies to perturbed postural balance test. This was investigated by assessing the precision and reliability of the treadmill belt movement and the test-retest reliability of perturbed postural balance test over 5 days. Postural balance variables were calculated from the center of pressure trajectory and included peak displacement, time to peak displacement, and recovery displacement. Additionally, the study investigated short-term learning effects over the 5 days. Eight healthy participants (aged 24–43 years) were assessed for 5 consecutive days with four different perturbation protocols. Center of pressure (COP) data were collected using the force plates of the treadmill while participant and belt movements were measured with an optical motion capture system. The results show that the treadmill can reliably deliver the intended perturbations with <1% deviation in total displacement and with minimal variability between days and participants (typical errors 0.06–2.71%). However, the treadmill was not able to reach the programmed 4 m/s² acceleration, reaching only about 75% of it. Test–retest reliability of the selected postural balance variables ranged from poor to good (ICC 0.156–0.752) with typical errors between 4.3 and 28.2%. Learning effects were detected based on linear or quadratic trends (p < 0.05) in peak displacement of the slow forward and fast backward protocols and in time to peak displacement in slow and fast backward protocols. The participants altered the initial location of the COP relative to the foot depending on the direction of the perturbation. In conclusion, the precision and accuracy of belt movement were found to be excellent. Test-retest reliability of the balance test utilizing an instrumented treadmill ranged from poor to good which is, in line with previous investigations using purpose-built devices for perturbed postural balance assessment.

Current and Emerging Trends in the Management of Fall Risk in People with Lower Limb Amputation

Purpose of Review

People living with lower limb amputation are at an increased risk of falling compared with the healthy geriatric population. Factors of increased age and increased number of comorbidities could compound the already increased risk. The purpose of this article is to highlight recent research associated with fall risk in amputees and provide the reader with evidence to help guide clinical interventions.

Recent Findings

Though research on the topic of falls in people with amputation is becoming more common, there is still a dearth of evidence regarding what contributes to increased fall risk and how to address it in this population. There are recent studies that have examined therapy and prosthetic interventions that could mitigate fall risk in people with amputation, yet there is not enough evidence to develop a consensus on the topic. More research is required to determine what contributes to increased fall rates in people with amputation, and what detriments to an amputee's function or psyche may result after incurring a fall.

Summary

Borrowing from what is known about geriatric fall risk and combining the information with novel and existing approaches to fall mitigation in amputees can offer clinicians the opportunity to develop evidence-based programs to address fall risk in their patients with lower limb amputation.

The development and feasibility of treadmill-induced fall recovery training applied to individuals with chronic stroke

Background

Exercise has failed to reduce falls in those with chronic stroke. A limitation of traditional exercise is that the motor responses needed to prevent a fall are not elicited (i.e. they lack processing specificity). Balance reactions often require compensatory steps. Therefore, interventions that target such steps have the potential to reduce falls. Computerized treadmills can deliver precise, repeatable, and challenging perturbations as part of a training protocol. The objective of this study was to develop and determine the feasibility of such training applied to those with chronic stroke. We developed the training to address specificity, appropriate duration and repetition, and progressive overloading and individualization. We hypothesized that our intervention would be acceptable, practical, safe, and demonstrate initial signs of efficacy.

Methods

In this single-arm study, thirteen individuals with chronic stroke (29–77 years old, 2–15 years post stroke) performed up to six training sessions using a computer-controlled treadmill. Each session had separate progressions focused on initial steps with the non-paretic or paretic limbs in response to anterior or posterior falls. Perturbation magnitudes were altered based on performance and tolerance. Acceptability was determined by adherence, or the number of sessions completed. Practicality was documented by the equipment, space, time, and personnel. Adverse events were documented to reflect safety. In order to determine the potential-efficacy of this training, we compared the proportion of successful recoveries and the highest perturbation magnitude achieved on the first and last sessions.

Results

The training was acceptable, as evident by 12/13 participants completing all 6 sessions. The protocol was practical, requiring one administrator, the treadmill, and a harness. The protocol was safe, as evident by no serious or unanticipated adverse events. The protocol demonstrated promising signs of efficacy. From the first to last sessions, participants had a higher proportion of successful recoveries and progressed to larger disturbances.

Conclusions

Using a computerized treadmill, we developed an approach to fall-recovery training in individuals with chronic stroke that was specific, considered duration and repetition, and incorporated progressive overloading and individualization. We demonstrated that this training was acceptable, practical, safe, and potentially beneficial for high-functioning individuals with chronic stroke.

Trial registration

Retrospectively registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03638089) August 20, 2018.