Reproducibility of electrodynogram testing

This study investigated the reproducibility of test results of the Langer Electrodynogram (EDG) foot sensor system which quantifies discrete pressures and temporal episodes at the interface of the foot and appropriate surface. In phase one of the study, the effects of transducer placement errors wer...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Turchyniak, Ronald John
Other Authors: Cartwright, G. F. (advisor)
Format: Others
Language:en
Published: McGill University 1993
Subjects:
Online Access:http://digitool.Library.McGill.CA:80/R/?func=dbin-jump-full&object_id=68140
id ndltd-LACETR-oai-collectionscanada.gc.ca-QMM.68140
record_format oai_dc
spelling ndltd-LACETR-oai-collectionscanada.gc.ca-QMM.681402014-02-13T03:51:22ZReproducibility of electrodynogram testingTurchyniak, Ronald JohnGait in humansThis study investigated the reproducibility of test results of the Langer Electrodynogram (EDG) foot sensor system which quantifies discrete pressures and temporal episodes at the interface of the foot and appropriate surface. In phase one of the study, the effects of transducer placement errors were evaluated by manipulating sensors. In the single subject studied, results suggested that placement errors of a single transducer within ${ pm1}$ cm from its original location do not significantly affect the temporal components of gait, though errors as low as ${ pm0.5}$ cm from an initial position significantly affected pressures.In phase two, ten healthy subjects performed 25 straight line barefoot walks on each of two separate days at an average natural cadence of 111.06 steps/min. with identical transducer placements on each day. Twenty-five gait variables were analysed for unilateral and asymmetries estimates. Analyses of variance revealed few significant differences among trials. Further, while there were no significant overall differences between days, there were significant subject-by-day interactions due to between-day differences in individual subjects, in part related to inherent subject-performance variability. Since clinicians are interested mainly in individual subject analyses rather than a mythical average subject, caution is advised in data interpretation when monitoring a subject on different days, even with as many as 25 trials per session and identical landmark placements. Pressures, while reliable within a single testing session, should not be used for inter-day comparisons and may not be appropriate for monitoring asymmetries because slight variations in placement will account for the measured differences between limbs.McGill UniversityCartwright, G. F. (advisor)1993Electronic Thesis or Dissertationapplication/pdfenalephsysno: 001395848proquestno: AAIMM94396Theses scanned by UMI/ProQuest.All items in eScholarship@McGill are protected by copyright with all rights reserved unless otherwise indicated.Master of Arts (Department of Physical Education.) http://digitool.Library.McGill.CA:80/R/?func=dbin-jump-full&object_id=68140
collection NDLTD
language en
format Others
sources NDLTD
topic Gait in humans
spellingShingle Gait in humans
Turchyniak, Ronald John
Reproducibility of electrodynogram testing
description This study investigated the reproducibility of test results of the Langer Electrodynogram (EDG) foot sensor system which quantifies discrete pressures and temporal episodes at the interface of the foot and appropriate surface. In phase one of the study, the effects of transducer placement errors were evaluated by manipulating sensors. In the single subject studied, results suggested that placement errors of a single transducer within ${ pm1}$ cm from its original location do not significantly affect the temporal components of gait, though errors as low as ${ pm0.5}$ cm from an initial position significantly affected pressures. === In phase two, ten healthy subjects performed 25 straight line barefoot walks on each of two separate days at an average natural cadence of 111.06 steps/min. with identical transducer placements on each day. Twenty-five gait variables were analysed for unilateral and asymmetries estimates. Analyses of variance revealed few significant differences among trials. Further, while there were no significant overall differences between days, there were significant subject-by-day interactions due to between-day differences in individual subjects, in part related to inherent subject-performance variability. Since clinicians are interested mainly in individual subject analyses rather than a mythical average subject, caution is advised in data interpretation when monitoring a subject on different days, even with as many as 25 trials per session and identical landmark placements. Pressures, while reliable within a single testing session, should not be used for inter-day comparisons and may not be appropriate for monitoring asymmetries because slight variations in placement will account for the measured differences between limbs.
author2 Cartwright, G. F. (advisor)
author_facet Cartwright, G. F. (advisor)
Turchyniak, Ronald John
author Turchyniak, Ronald John
author_sort Turchyniak, Ronald John
title Reproducibility of electrodynogram testing
title_short Reproducibility of electrodynogram testing
title_full Reproducibility of electrodynogram testing
title_fullStr Reproducibility of electrodynogram testing
title_full_unstemmed Reproducibility of electrodynogram testing
title_sort reproducibility of electrodynogram testing
publisher McGill University
publishDate 1993
url http://digitool.Library.McGill.CA:80/R/?func=dbin-jump-full&object_id=68140
work_keys_str_mv AT turchyniakronaldjohn reproducibilityofelectrodynogramtesting
_version_ 1716640352166739968