0
RESEARCH PAPERS

The Vertical Displacement of the Center of Mass During Walking: A Comparison of Four Measurement Methods

[+] Author and Article Information
M. Saini

Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital, 125 Nashua St., Boston, MA 02114; Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139

D. C. Kerrigan

Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital, 125 Nashua St., Boston, MA 02114; Harvard Medical School Division of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Boston, MA 02114

M. A. Thirunarayan, M. Duff-Raffaele

Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital, 125 Nashua St., Boston, MA 02114

J Biomech Eng 120(1), 133-139 (Feb 01, 1998) (7 pages) doi:10.1115/1.2834293 History: Received September 04, 1995; Revised January 23, 1997; Online January 07, 2008

Abstract

Measuring the vertical displacement of the center of mass (COM) of the body during walking may provide useful information about the energy required to walk. Four methods of varying complexity to estimate the vertical displacement of the COM were compared in 25 able-bodied, female subjects. The first method, the sacral marker method, utilized an external marker on the sacrum as representative of the COM of the body. The second method, the reconstructed pelvis method, which also utilized a marker over the sacrum, theoretically controlled for pelvic tilt motion. The third method, the segmental analysis method, involved measuring motion of the trunk and limb segments. The fourth method, the forceplate method, involved estimating the COM displacement from ground reaction force measurements. A two-tailed paired t-test within an ANOVA showed no statistically significant difference between the sacral marker and the reconstructed pelvis methods (p = 0.839). There was also no statistically significant difference between the sacral marker and the segmental analysis method (p = 0.119) or between the reconstructed pelvis and the segmental analysis method (p = 0.174). It follows that the first method, which is the most simple, can provide essentially the same estimate of the vertical displacement of the COM as the more complicated second and third measures. The forceplate method produced data with a lower range and a different distribution than the other three methods. There was a statistically significant difference between the forceplate method and the other methods (p < 0.01 for each of the three comparisons). The forceplate method provides information that is statistically significantly different from the results of the kinematic methods. The magnitude of the difference is large enough to be physiologically significant and further studies to define the sources of the differences and the relative validity of the two approaches are warranted.

Copyright © 1998 by The American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In