ABSTRACT
Background: Balance is defined as the ability to maintain a position within the limits of stability or base of support. It is indicated that postural control system plays an important role in maintenance of balance on the small support base. The complexity of balancing processes makes it challenging to assess balancing abilities in a concise, holistic approach. This study extends previous efforts by reviewing a large number of papers that use of various mechanical tools to assess postural balance and by providing a detailed overview of the common mechanical tools used to assess postural balance and gait. Methods: We searched the electronic database. The literature search produced a total of 302 items. After removal of duplicates, posters, other studies not mention mechanical tools to evaluate static and dynamic balance in clinical conditions, 28 papers met the inclusion criteria for this review. Results: This search selected 7 tools to assess trunk control in various clinical conditions: Inertial balance sensor, Computerised dynamic posturography, Biodex Balance System, Force plate., MatScan® pressure mat, Microsoft Kinect’s built-in RGB-D sensor and Clinical Test of sensory integration using Chinese lantern. Conclusion: Inertial as well as Microsoft Kinect’s built-in RGB-D sensors are cost effective, time effective, does not need a specific set up, analysis static balance as well as the gait parameters. This can therefore be chosen over other mechanical tools due to its better convenience and efficiency.
ABSTRACT
Background:This study was to measure the upper extremity performance time on Nine Hole Peg Test (NHPT) in two different sitting orientations relative to vertical plane. Aim:To find out the influence of sitting orientation on upper extremity motor function using NHPT. Methods:100 children with the mean age 11year (53 male, 47 female) partici-pated in the study. Children were selected according to inclusion and exclusion criteria. Age groups were re-established for data representation purposes as: 5-7, 8-10, 11-13, 14-16. Each one was briefly interviewed prior to the test, procedure explained and statistical analysis was done for the final results. Results: Gender wise relation revealed non-significant difference in performance time on NHPT in 900 upright and 150 anterior sitting orientation. Performance time on NHPT with dominant and non-dominant hand in 900 upright & 150anterior sitting orientation shows significant difference. The mean performance time with dominant hand on NHPT was slightly lesser in 150anterior sitting orientation than 900upright orientations. According to age wise distribution the performance time on NHPT reveals that as the age increases the performance time decreases from 5-11 year. The performance time be-comes constant from 11-16 years of age. Conclusion:Result of this study suggest that trunk orientation does not affect upper extremity performance on NHPT. As it implies that 150anterior trunk orientation is equivalent to upright sitting orientation. Hence both the trunk orientation can be used to train patients for upper extremity hand function.