The use of a footrest while performing activity in standing is frequently associated with improvement of a user’s well-being however no information exists on the role of a footrest in improving postural stability. The aim of the study was to evaluate the effects of using a footrest in postural control. Twenty healthy young volunteers were tested using three experimental conditions: standing with two feet on the force platform and standing on the force platform when one foot was placed on a 15 cm footrest positioned in front or laterally. The mean and root mean square distance, range and velocity of the center of pressure (COP) were calculated in the anterior-posterior (AP) and medio-lateral (ML) directions using the force platform data. The COP displacements in AP and ML directions increased in conditions of standing with one foot placed on the footrest regardless of its location. Standing with eyes closed increased COP displacements further. The outcome of the study suggests the importance of using COP measures for evaluation of postural stability and provides additional information needed for optimization of working conditions involving standing with a footrest.
Search Results
Mohan Ganesan, Yun-Ju Lee, and Alexander S. Aruin
Thom T.J. Veeger, Annemarie M.H. de Witte, Monique A.M. Berger, Rienk M.A. van der Slikke, Dirkjan (H.E.J.) Veeger, and Marco J.M. Hoozemans
Vertical distance front seat height and footrest, cm 55 31 53 43.0 4.2 W6 Camber angle, deg 57 15 21 17.8 1.3 W7 Wheel axis height, cm 58 28 36 31.3 1.7 W8 Height back support, cm 57 11 28 18.0 4.1 W9 Rear seat height, cm 59 45 70 58.2 6.1 W10 Front seat height, cm 58 48 72 58.2 4.5 W11 Seat depth
Isabella Fessl, Johannes Dirnberger, Josef Kröll, and Hans-Peter Wiesinger
. Participants were instructed to tightly hold side handles located at mid-thigh. The footrest was 10 cm above the dynamometer chair with 15° ankle plantar flexion. Participants were asked to put their feet onto the footrest with the heels central to the lower frame. The range of motion of the leg press movement
Darren Steeves, Leo J. Thornley, Joshua A. Goreham, Matthew J. Jordan, Scott C. Landry, and Jonathon R. Fowles
trunk peak isometric force tasks. Trunk-Strength Testing A kayak ergometer (CatchForce, KayakPro) was altered so the seat, footrests, and paddle cables remained stationary. One 227-kg “S” load cell (BLH Electronics, Canton, MA) was securely connected to a steel beam behind the participant. For all tasks
Sunghoon Shin and Jacob J. Sosnoff
is disturbed. Several studies examining the biomechanics of sitting posture also found that postural constraints, such as spine angles and footrest status, can affect sitting balance ( Andersson, Ortengren, Nachemso, & Elfström, 1974 ; Bolin, Bodin, & Kreuter, 2000 ; Harrison, Harrison, Croft
Rafael E.A. Muchaxo, Sonja de Groot, Lucas H.V. van der Woude, Thomas W.J. Janssen, and Carla Nooijen
ability to push off with their legs on the footrest, inducing a closed chain, might have the advantage of achieving higher power outputs than handcyclists who do not have such ability ( Kouwijzer et al., 2018 ). This push-off ability with the legs is not part of the current description of handcycling
Marie Boland, Nora May Crotty, Nick Mahony, Bernard Donne, and Neil Fleming
-based testing. In a stationary ergometer, both the flywheel and footrests are fixed to a frame and only the operator and seat move relative to the ground. Dynamic ergometers have been developed to more closely replicate the movement dynamics and energy costs associated with on-water rowing. 1 In a dynamic
San Hong, Jieun Yang, Donghyun Kim, and Yongho Lee
interface—Chair positioning lever 4.62 1.00 .79 56 Common interface—Grip 4.62 1.00 .79 57 Common interface—Footrest 4.52 .80 .79 58 Treadmill interface—Emergency stop button 4.76 1.00 .89 59 Treadmill interface—Start button 4.76 1.00 .79 60 Treadmill interface—Stop button 4.81 1.00 .89 61 Treadmill
Milos R. Petrovic, Amador García-Ramos, Danica N. Janicijevic, Alejandro Pérez-Castilla, Olivera M. Knezevic, and Dragan M. Mirkov
overcame the weight and friction force. The roller device had a seat and a footrest, as in a standard K1 boat. The feet were fixed according to the individual anthropometric characteristics with a knee angle of 120° to 130°. The shaft was fixed to the rails with a 50-cm-long rope. The left stroke was
Bassam A. Nabil, Mariam A. Ameer, Azza M. Abdelmohsen, Abeer F. Hanafy, Ahmed S. Yamani, Naglaa M. Elhafez, and Salam M. Elhafez
trunk upright, elbow in extension, and forearm in midposition. The trunk of each participant was supported by a pelvic strap and a diagonal anterior strap. The subject’s thighs were oriented horizontally, and the feet were uncrossed and flat on a footrest. The dynamometer head was tilted at 10°, seat
