4.5 Article

Effects of seat-thigh contact on kinematics performance in sit-to-stand and trunk flexion tasks

Journal

JOURNAL OF BIOMECHANICS
Volume 46, Issue 5, Pages 879-882

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2012.12.022

Keywords

Joint mobility; Sitting posture; Seat condition; Trunk flexion; Sit-to-stand; Speed performance

Ask authors/readers for more resources

It has been shown that thigh-seat contact-surface influences performance of isometric push-force with upper-limbs. The push-force performance is higher when subjects are seated with partial ischiofemoral / seat contact than when they are seated with full ischio-femoral contact. This was ascribed to greater pelvis and spine mobility induced by the short thigh-seat contact-surface. The present study tested the generalization of this hypothesis during movements involving body segment displacement, namely trunk flexion (TF) and sit-to-stand (STS) motor tasks. Both motor tasks were carried out in similar conditions to those implemented in the isometric push-force tasks, i.e. full ischio-femoral / seat contact (100-IFC) and short ischio-femoral contact (30-IFC, i.e. 30% of full ischio-femoral / seat contact). Results showed that kinematic performances (maximal antero-posterior and vertical center of mass velocity and maximal backward displacement of center of pressure) in both motor tasks were higher in 30-IFC than in 100-IFC. In the sit-to-stand task, time of seat-off is shorter in 30-IFC. As the subject's initial global posture was comparable across the experimental conditions, it can be discarded as a source of performance change. It is discussed that it is the enhanced pelvis mobility induced by the sitting condition which is responsible for the increase of motor performance in both trunk flexion and sit-to-stand tasks. Our results highlight the role of joint mobility in motor performance. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available