A subscription to JoVE is required to view this content. Sign in or start your free trial.
Method Article
Here, we present a novel protocol to measure positional stability at key events during the sit-to-stand-to-walk using the center-of-pressure to the whole-body-center-of-mass distance. This was derived from the force platform and three-dimensional motion-capture technology. The paradigm is reliable and can be utilized for the assessment of neurologically compromised individuals.
Individuals with sensorimotor pathology e.g., stroke have difficulty executing the common task of rising from sitting and initiating gait (sit-to-walk: STW). Thus, in clinical rehabilitation separation of sit-to-stand and gait initiation - termed sit-to-stand-and-walk (STSW) - is usual. However, a standardized STSW protocol with a clearly defined analytical approach suitable for pathological assessment has yet to be defined.
Hence, a goal-orientated protocol is defined that is suitable for healthy and compromised individuals by requiring the rising phase to be initiated from 120% knee height with a wide base of support independent of lead limb. Optical capture of three-dimensional (3D) segmental movement trajectories, and force platforms to yield two-dimensional (2D) center-of-pressure (COP) trajectories permit tracking of the horizontal distance between COP and whole-body-center-of-mass (BCOM), the decrease of which increases positional stability but is proposed to represent poor dynamic postural control.
BCOM-COP distance is expressed with and without normalization to subjects' leg length. Whilst COP-BCOM distances vary through STSW, normalized data at the key movement events of seat-off and initial toe-off (TO1) during steps 1 and 2 have low intra and inter subject variability in 5 repeated trials performed by 10 young healthy individuals. Thus, comparing COP-BCOM distance at key events during performance of an STSW paradigm between patients with upper motor neuron injury, or other compromised patient groups, and normative data in young healthy individuals is a novel methodology for evaluation of dynamic postural stability.
Clinical pathologies affecting the sensorimotor systems, for example upper motor neuron (UMN) injury following stroke, lead to functional impairments including weakness, loss of postural stability and spasticity, which can negatively affect locomotion. Recovery can be variable with a significant number of stroke survivors failing to achieve the functional milestones of safe standing or walking1,2.
The discrete practice of walking and sit-to-stand are common rehabilitative tasks after UMN pathology3,4, however transitional movements are frequently neglected. Sit-to-walk (STW) is a sequential postural-locomotor task incorporating sit-to-stand (STS), gait initiation (GI), and walking5.
Separation of STS and GI, reflective of hesitation during STW has been observed in patients with Parkinson's disease6 and chronic stroke7, in addition to older unimpaired adults8, but not in young healthy individuals9. Therefore sit-to-stand-and-walk (STSW) is commonly implemented within the clinical environment and is defined by a pause phase of variable length when standing. However, there are no published protocols to date defining STSW dynamics in a context suitable for patient populations.
Usually in STW studies the initial chair height is 100% of knee height (KH; floor-to-knee distance), foot-width and GI lead-limb are self-selected, arms are constrained across the chest and an ecologically meaningful task context is often absent5-9. However, patients find rising from 100% KH challenging10 and frequently adopt a wider foot position compared with healthy individuals11, initiate gait with their affected leg7, and use their arms to generate momentum7.
To initiate gait, a state change in whole-body movement in a purposeful direction is required12. This is achieved by uncoupling the whole-body center-of-mass (BCOM: the weighted average of all considered body segments in space13) from the center-of-pressure (COP: the position of the resultant ground reaction force (GRF) vector14). In the anticipatory phase of GI, rapid stereotypical posterior and lateral movement of the COP toward the limb to be swung occurs thereby generating BCOM momentum12,15. The COP and BCOM are thus separated, with the horizontal distance between them having been proposed as a measure of dynamic postural control16.
The calculation of COP-BCOM distance requires simultaneous measurement of the COP and BCOM positions. The standard calculation of COP is shown below in equation (1)17:
(1)
Where M and Force represent moments about the force platform axes and the directional GRF respectively. The subscripts represent axes. The origin is the vertical distance between the contact surface and the origin of the force platform, and is considered to be zero.
The kinematic method of deriving BCOM position involves tracking the displacement of segmental markers. A faithful representation of body-segment motion can be achieved by employing markers clustered on rigid plates placed away from bony landmarks, minimizing soft-tissue-artifact (CAST technique18). In order to determine BCOM position, individual body segment masses are estimated, based on cadaveric work19. Three-dimensional (3D) motion system proprietary software uses the coordinate positions of proximal and distal segment locations to: 1) determine segmental lengths, 2) arithmetically estimate segmental masses, and 3) compute segmental COM locations. These models are then able to provide estimates of 3D BCOM position at a given point in time based on the net summation of inter-segmental positions (Figure 1).
Thus, the purpose of this paper is first to present a standardized STSW protocol that is ecologically valid and includes rising from a high seat-height. It has been shown previously that STSW from 120% KH is biomechanically indistinct from 100% KH barring generation of lower BCOM vertical velocities and GRF's during rising20, meaning rising from 120% KH is easier (and safer) for compromised individuals. Second, to derive COP-BCOM horizontal distances to assess dynamic postural control during key milestones and transitions using 3D motion-capture. This approach, which in healthy individuals during STSW is independent of limb-lead20, offers the prospect of functional recovery evaluation. Finally, a preliminary STSW data set representative of young healthy individuals is presented, and intra and inter-subject variability in the group is defined in order to inform comparison with pathological individuals.
Figure 1. 2D BCOM calculation. For simplicity, the example is based on calculating whole-leg COM from a 3-linked mass in 2 dimensions, where coordinates of the respective COM positions (x,y), and segmental masses (m1, m2, m3) are known. Segment masses and location of segmental COM positions, with respect to the laboratory coordinate system (LCS; origin: 0, 0), are estimated by motion analysis system proprietary software using subject body mass and published anthropometric data (see main text). The x and y leg COM position, in this example of the 3-linked mass, is then derived using the formulae shown. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
The protocol follows the local guidelines for the testing of human participants, defined by London South Bank University research ethics committee approval (UREC1413/2014).
1. Gait Laboratory Preparation
Figure 2. Experimental Protocol. This example shows a left-leg lead: Subjects sit on an instrumented stool at 120% knee height (KH) with ankles 10° degrees in dorsiflexion and feet at shoulder width apart orientated forward. On a visual cue, subjects perform 5 trials of STSW leading with their non-dominant limb at self-selected pace terminated by switching off the light. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Figure 3. L-Shaped Reference Structure and Wand for Camera Calibration. The L-shaped reference structure remains stationary and has 4 markers attached to it. The wand has two markers attached to it at a fixed distance and is moved, with respect to the reference structure, to create a 3-D calibrated volume of space that is sufficient enough for the intended marker set to pass through. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
2. Subject Preparation
Table 1: Subject Characteristics. Individual data and mean (±1 SD) across 10 subjects are shown.
Table 2: Marker-set placement. Markers (anatomical and tracking) based on a previously reported technical frame of reference23.
3. Static Capture
4. Familiarization
5. STSW Dynamic Trials
6. Proprietary Tracking Software Post Processing
7. Biomechanics Analysis Software Post Processing
Table 3a: Anatomical Coordinate System for Whole Body Model.
Table 3b: Joint Center Definitions for Whole Body Model.
(2a) Net medio-lateral force
(2b) Net anterior-posterior force
(2c) Net vertical force
(2d) Net platform moment about x-axis
(2e) Net platform moment about y-axis
(2f) x-Coordinate of net force application point (COPx)
(2g) y-Coordinate of net force application point (COPy)
Figure 4. Force Structure. Example of a rectangular force structure encompassing 4 force platforms in a right lead-limb orientation. Details of local COP application and dimensions with respect to a laboratory coordinate system (LCS) are shown for force platform 1 as an example. The x, y, z position of the platform reference system (PRS) is offset relative to the LCS where X1 and Y1 represent the mediolateral and anteroposterior distances from PRS, respectively. To calculate the individual platform moment about the x-axis, the vertical GRF is multiplied by the sum of the local y COP coordinate and the new PRS-LCS offset y coordinate (Y1+y1). The moment about the y-axis coordinate is similarly calculated by multiplying the vertical GRF by the negative sum of the local x COP coordinate and the new PRS-LCS offset x coordinate -(X1+x1). The total moment of force about the global force structure is equal to the sum of all of the moments of force, divided by the sum of the individual vertical forces. Net COP X and Y coordinates are thus produced for the force structure within the LCS (equations 2a-g). Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Table 4: Movement Event Definitions. GI – gait initiation; COP – center-of-pressure; HO1 – first heel-off; TO1 – 1st toe-off, IC1 – 1st initial contact.
8. Lab-specific Normative Value Calculations
All subjects rose with their feet placed on the twin force platforms, leading with their non-dominant limb as instructed. Normal gait was observed with subjects stepping cleanly onto the other platforms and 3D optical-based motion analysis successfully tracked whole body movement during 5 repeated goal-orientated STSW tasks rising from 120% KH. Simultaneous COP and BCOM mediolateral (ML) and anteroposterior (AP) displacements between seat-off and IC2 (100% STSW cycle) comprising: rise, pa...
The sit-to-stand-and-walk (STSW) protocol defined here can be used to test dynamic postural control during complex transitional movement in healthy individuals or patient groups. The protocol includes constraints that are designed to allow subjects with pathology to participate, and the inclusion of switching off the light means it is ecologically valid and goal-orientated. As it has been shown previously that lead-limb and rising from a high (120% KH) seat does not fundamentally affect task dynamics during STSW20
The authors have no competing financial interests to disclose.
The authors would like to thank Tony Christopher, Lindsey Marjoram at King's College London and Bill Anderson at London South Bank University for their practical support. Thank you also to Eleanor Jones at King's College London for her help in collecting the data for this project.
Name | Company | Catalog Number | Comments |
Motion Tracking Cameras | Qualysis (Qualysis AB Gothenburg, Sweden) | Oqus 300+ | n= 8 |
Qualysis Track Manager (QTM) | Qualysis (Qualysis AB Gothenburg, Sweden) | QTM 2.9 Build No: 1697 | Proprietary tracking software |
Force Platform Amplifier | Kistler Instruments, Hook, UK | 5233A | n= 4 |
Force Platform | Kistler Instruments, Hook, UK | 9281E | n= 4 |
AD Converter | Qualysis (Qualysis AB Gothenburg, Sweden) | 230599 | |
Light-Weight Wooden Walkway Section | Kistler Instruments, Hook, UK | Type 9401B01 | n= 2 |
Light-Weight Wooden Walkway Section | Kistler Instruments, Hook, UK | Type 9401B02 | n= 4 |
4 Point "L-Shaped" Calibration Frame | Qualysis (Qualysis AB Gothenburg, Sweden) | ||
"T-Shaped" Wand | Qualysis (Qualysis AB Gothenburg, Sweden) | ||
12 mm Diameter Passive Retro reflective Marker | Qualysis (Qualysis AB Gothenburg, Sweden) | Cat No: 160181 | Flat Base |
Double Adhesive Tape | Qualysis (Qualysis AB Gothenburg, Sweden) | Cat No: 160188 | For fixing markers to skin |
Height-Adjustable Stool | Ikea, Sweden | Svenerik | Height 43 - 58 cm with ~ 10cm customized height extension option at each leg |
Circular (Disc) Pressure Floor Pad | Arun Electronics Ltd, Sussex, UK | PM10 | 305 mm Diameter, 3 mm thickness, 2 wire |
Lower Limb Tracking Marker Clusters | Qualysis (Qualysis AB Gothenburg, Sweden) | Cat No: 160145 | 2 Marker clusters, lower body with 8 markers (n= 2) |
Upper Limb Tracking Marker Clusters | Qualysis (Qualysis AB Gothenburg, Sweden) | Cat No: 160146 | 2 Marker clusters, lower body with 6 markers (n= 2) |
Self-Securing Bandage | Fabrifoam, PA, USA | 3'' x 5' | |
Cycling Skull Cap | Dhb | Windslam | |
Digital Column Scale | Seca | 763 Digital Medical Scale w/ Stadiometer | |
Measuring Caliper | Grip-On | Grip Jumbo Aluminum Caliper - Model no. 59070 | 24 in. Jaw |
Extendable Arm Goniometer | Lafayette Instrument | Model 01135 | Gollehon |
Light Switch | Custom made | ||
Visual3D Biomechanics Analysis Software | C-Motion Inc., Germantown, MD, USA | Version 4.87 |
Request permission to reuse the text or figures of this JoVE article
Request PermissionThis article has been published
Video Coming Soon
Copyright © 2025 MyJoVE Corporation. All rights reserved