4.5 Article

Low vision affects dynamic stability of gait

Journal

GAIT & POSTURE
Volume 32, Issue 4, Pages 547-551

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2010.07.018

Keywords

Locomotion; Gait; Low vision; Kinematics; Stability

Funding

  1. The National Science Foundation of Flanders

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The objective of this study was to demonstrate specific differences in gait patterns between those with and without a visual impairment We performed a biomechanical analysis of the gait pattern of young adults (27 +/- 13 years old) with a visual impairment (n = 10) in an uncluttered environment and compared it to the gait pattern of age matched controls (n = 20) Normally sighted adults were tested in a full vision and no vision condition Differences are found in gait between both groups and both situations Adults with a visual impairment walked with a shorter stride length (1 14 +/- 021 m) less trunk flexion (4 55 +/- 5 14) and an earlier plantar foot contact at heel strike (1 83 +/- 3 49) than sighted individuals (1 39 +/- 0 08 m 11 07 +/- 4 01 5 10 +/- 3 53) When sighted individuals were blindfolded (no vision condition) they showed similar gait adaptations as well as a slower walking speed (0 84 +/- 028 m s(-1)) a lower cadence (96 88 +/- 13 71 steps min(-1)) and limited movements of the hip (38 24 +/- 6 27) and the ankle in the saggital plane (-5 60 +/- 5 07 degrees) compared to a full vision condition (1 27 +/- 013 m s(-1) 110 55 +/- 709 steps min(-1) 45 32 +/- 4 57 -16 51 +/- 6 59 degrees) Results showed that even in an uncluttered environment vision is important for locomotion control The differences between those with and without a visual impairment and between the full vision and no vision conditions may reflect a more cautious walking strategy and adaptive changes employed to use the foot to probe the ground for haptic exploration (C) 2010 Elsevier B V 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