4.5 Article

Comparison of forward versus backward walking on spatiotemporal and kinematic parameters on sand: A preliminary study

Journal

JOURNAL OF BIOMECHANICS
Volume 130, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2021.110876

Keywords

Sand walking; Backward walking; Spatiotemporal; Kinematic

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study found that walking on sand results in a different gait pattern compared to walking on solid ground, suggesting that sand walking can be utilized as a new approach to gait and balance training in clinical practice.
The purpose of this study was to investigate the spatiotemporal and kinematic parameters of backward walking (BW) and forward walking (FW) on sand. Randomly selected subjects (n = 28) were categorized into a sand group (SG, n = 14) and an overground group (OG, n = 14). SG was directed to perform both FW and BW on sand, while OG performed the same on the overground. Spatiotemporal and kinematic parameters were measured using the LegSys + device. The comparative findings of both the groups showed that the spatiotemporal parameters of SG varied significantly from those of OG in both FW and BW conditions (p < 0.05). The kinematic parameters varied significantly between the two groups only in the FW condition (p 0.05). When compared within each group, spatiotemporal and kinematic parameters in the BW condition were significantly different from those in the FW condition. However, the percentages of stance, swing, and double support were not significantly different between FW and BW conditions (p 0.05). This study suggests that sand walking is associated with a different gait pattern than overground walking, as evident from the analysis of the results of spatiotemporal and kinematic parameters in both FW and BW conditions. Therefore, sand walking can be used as a new approach to gait and balance training in clinical practice.

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