Advanced

The effects of foam surface properties on standing body movement.

Patel, Mitesh LU ; Fransson, Per-Anders LU ; Lush, D; Petersen, H; Magnusson, Måns LU ; Johansson, R and Gomez, S (2008) In Acta Oto-Laryngologica 128(9). p.952-960
Abstract
CONCLUSION: The properties of a foam surface significantly affect body movement variance. Therefore, studies where different kinds of foam have been used may not provide congruent results. OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether different properties of foam affect body movement variance (32 subjects, mean age 22.5 years) in terms of linear head, shoulder, hip and knee movements. Subjects repeated tests with eyes open and closed, to also determine the effect of vision on the different surfaces. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Body movement was captured on three different foam surfaces and on a control solid surface over 2 min using a Zebris ultrasound measuring system. The foam surfaces were categorized by their firmness as firm foam, medium foam and soft... (More)
CONCLUSION: The properties of a foam surface significantly affect body movement variance. Therefore, studies where different kinds of foam have been used may not provide congruent results. OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether different properties of foam affect body movement variance (32 subjects, mean age 22.5 years) in terms of linear head, shoulder, hip and knee movements. Subjects repeated tests with eyes open and closed, to also determine the effect of vision on the different surfaces. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Body movement was captured on three different foam surfaces and on a control solid surface over 2 min using a Zebris ultrasound measuring system. The foam surfaces were categorized by their firmness as firm foam, medium foam and soft foam. RESULTS: Body movement variance increased significantly when standing on all foam surfaces compared with the solid surface. However, movement variance was larger when standing on the firm foam compared with the softer foams, except in the anteroposterior total and low frequency ranges. We also found that the body movement pattern differed when standing on foam and firm surfaces, with greater reliance on movements at the knee to give postural stability on foam than on the solid surface. Vision clearly reduced all body movement variances, but particularly within the high frequency range. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
subject
in
Acta Oto-Laryngologica
volume
128
issue
9
pages
952 - 960
publisher
Taylor & Francis
external identifiers
  • WOS:000258371500002
  • PMID:19086193
  • Scopus:49649104479
ISSN
1651-2251
DOI
10.1080/00016480701827517
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
d8c54e80-97f5-4339-80aa-607230ad7289 (old id 1276143)
alternative location
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19086193?dopt=Abstract
http://www.control.lth.se/database/publications/article.pike?artkey=ActaOtol2009
date added to LUP
2009-01-09 11:56:21
date last changed
2016-10-13 04:34:51
@misc{d8c54e80-97f5-4339-80aa-607230ad7289,
  abstract     = {CONCLUSION: The properties of a foam surface significantly affect body movement variance. Therefore, studies where different kinds of foam have been used may not provide congruent results. OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether different properties of foam affect body movement variance (32 subjects, mean age 22.5 years) in terms of linear head, shoulder, hip and knee movements. Subjects repeated tests with eyes open and closed, to also determine the effect of vision on the different surfaces. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Body movement was captured on three different foam surfaces and on a control solid surface over 2 min using a Zebris ultrasound measuring system. The foam surfaces were categorized by their firmness as firm foam, medium foam and soft foam. RESULTS: Body movement variance increased significantly when standing on all foam surfaces compared with the solid surface. However, movement variance was larger when standing on the firm foam compared with the softer foams, except in the anteroposterior total and low frequency ranges. We also found that the body movement pattern differed when standing on foam and firm surfaces, with greater reliance on movements at the knee to give postural stability on foam than on the solid surface. Vision clearly reduced all body movement variances, but particularly within the high frequency range.},
  author       = {Patel, Mitesh and Fransson, Per-Anders and Lush, D and Petersen, H and Magnusson, Måns and Johansson, R and Gomez, S},
  issn         = {1651-2251},
  language     = {eng},
  number       = {9},
  pages        = {952--960},
  publisher    = {ARRAY(0x8c726e8)},
  series       = {Acta Oto-Laryngologica},
  title        = {The effects of foam surface properties on standing body movement.},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00016480701827517},
  volume       = {128},
  year         = {2008},
}