This Article Full Text (OnlineFirst PDF) All Versions of this Article: 1545968307310050v1 22/4/348    most recent Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Regnaux, J.-P. Articles by Dobkin, B. H. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Regnaux, J.-P. Articles by Dobkin, B. H. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

An Accelerometry-Based Comparison of 2 Robotic Assistive Devices For Treadmill Training of Gait

^* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: bdobkin{at}mednet.ucla.edu.

	Abstract

Objective. Two commercial robotic devices, the Gait Trainer (GT) and the Lokomat (LOKO), assist task-oriented practice of walking. The gait patterns induced by these motor-driven devices have not been characterized and compared. Methods. A healthy participant chose the most comfortable gait pattern on each device and for treadmill (TM) walking at 1, 2 (maximum for the GT), and 3 km/h and over ground at similar speeds. A system of accelerometers on the thighs and feet allowed the calculation of spatiotemporal features and accelerations during the gait cycle. Results. At the 1 and 2 km/h speed settings, single-limb stance times were prolonged on the devices compared with overground walking. Differences on the LOKO were decreased by adjusting the hip and knee angles and step length. At the 3 km/h setting, the LOKO approximated the participant’s overground parameters. Irregular accelerations and decelerations from toe-off to heel contact were induced by the devices, especially at slower speeds. Conclusions. The LOKO and GT impose mechanical constraints that may alter leg accelerations–decelerations during stance and swing phases, as well as stance duration, especially at their slower speed settings, that are not found during TM and overground walking. The potential impact of these perturbations on training to improve gait needs further study.

First published on December 11, 2007, doi:10.1177/1545968307310050

Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair 2008;22:348.

A more recent version of this article appeared on July 1, 2008


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				B. H. Dobkin Progressive Staging of Pilot Studies to Improve Phase III Trials for Motor Interventions Neurorehabil Neural Repair, March 1, 2009; 23(3): 197 - 206. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. U. Blicher and J. F. Nielsen Cortical and Spinal Excitability Changes After Robotic Gait Training in Healthy Participants Neurorehabil Neural Repair, February 1, 2009; 23(2): 143 - 149. [Abstract] [PDF]