Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
The impact of varying trolley case usage modes and weights on body posture.
Li, Mingxi; Liu, Rong; Wu, Shiying; Lv, Ying; Jia, Yi; Wang, Chenyan.
Affiliation
  • Li M; School of Physical Education, North University of China, Taiyuan City, Shanxi Province 030051, PR China.
  • Liu R; School of Physical Education, North University of China, Taiyuan City, Shanxi Province 030051, PR China.
  • Wu S; School of Physical Education, North University of China, Taiyuan City, Shanxi Province 030051, PR China.
  • Lv Y; School of Physical Education, North University of China, Taiyuan City, Shanxi Province 030051, PR China.
  • Jia Y; School of Physical Education, North University of China, Taiyuan City, Shanxi Province 030051, PR China. Electronic address: jiayi@nuc.edu.cn.
  • Wang C; College of Biomedical Engineering, Taiyuan University of Technology, Taiyuan City, Shanxi Province 030002, PR China.
Gait Posture ; 109: 284-290, 2024 03.
Article in En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38377745
ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE:

To study the body posture characteristics when walking with trolley case, and to explore the effects of different usage methods and weights of trolley case on body posture characteristics.

METHODS:

Fifteen subjects pushed and pulled(Condition 1 and 2) the case with three load weights of 10 %, 20 % and 30 % of their own body weight with 0 % no load as baseline for both conditions. The basic gait parameters, kinematic and kinetic data were collected using the VICON infrared motion capture system and a 3D force platform. Two repeated measures factor (condition×weight) analysis of variance was used for statistical analysis of the gait temporal and spatial parameters, as well as trunk angle, kinetic ground reaction force, shoulder joint force, and trunk moment.

RESULTS:

Significant condition*weight interactions were detected in DLST (Double Limb Stance Time) (F=5.341,P = 0.006), GRF (Ground Reaction Force) in frontal plane (F=10.507, p < 0.001) and vertical plane (F=3.751, p = 0.021), shoulder joint force in sagittal plane (F=21.129, p < 0.001), and flexion-extension angle of the trunk in the sagittal plane (F=4.888, p < 0.010). Significant main effects were detected in walking speed (F=35.842, p < 0.001), right support time (F=12.156, p < 0.001), left swing time (F=8.506, p < 0.001), left support time (F=1.122, p < 0.001), right step length (F=33.900, p < 0.001), and left step length (F=14.960, p < 0.001) under different weights. A significant main effect was detected in sagittal GRF (F=11.77, p < 0.001), trunk rotation angle (F=4.124, p = 0.016), amplitude of COM (F=2.993, p = 0.046), under different weights.

CONCLUSION:

When the weight of the case exceeds 20 % of the body weight, from the perspective of energy efficiency, the push method is more advantageous than the pull method. When walking with luggage, people tend to maintain the stability of their trunk posture by adjusting the force on their arms more often.
Subject(s)
Key words

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Walking / Gait Limits: Humans Language: En Journal: Gait Posture Journal subject: ORTOPEDIA Year: 2024 Document type: Article

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Walking / Gait Limits: Humans Language: En Journal: Gait Posture Journal subject: ORTOPEDIA Year: 2024 Document type: Article
...