2017
DOI: 10.1007/s10439-017-1834-4
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Can Recovery Foot Placement Affect Older Adults’ Slip-Fall Severity?

Abstract: Following a slip occurred in the overground walking, a fall can be classified into two exclusive categories: feet-forward fall or split fall. The purposes of this study were to investigate whether the placement of the recovery foot would determine the slip types, the likelihood of fall, and the severity of fall. The fall severity was estimated based on the impact velocity of body segments or trunk orientation upon fall arrest. One hundred ninety-five participants experienced a novel, unannounced slip while wal… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

1
22
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(23 citation statements)
references
References 47 publications
1
22
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Frontal plane lower body models revealed two biomechanical behaviors that were associated with falls: (1) frontal plane sliding feet, where both feet travel in the same direction (ipsilaterally/contralaterally) and opposite to the CoM, and (2) frontal plane split feet, where both feet travel faster than the CoM and opposite to each other. Sagittal plane lower body models, on the other hand, revealed two biomechanical behaviors that are similar to those described in past literature ( 17 , 19 , 21 ): (1) sagittal plane split feet, where the leading foot travels faster than the CoM and opposite to the trailing foot, which travels opposite to both, and (2) sagittal plane forward sliding mechanism, where both feet travel with a velocity similar to that of the CoM. However, we believe that foot motion relative to the CoM is not the only contributor to falls and recoveries, and that upper body biomechanics play a crucial role in redistributing sagittal and frontal plane angular momentum from the trunk to the arms.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 83%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…Frontal plane lower body models revealed two biomechanical behaviors that were associated with falls: (1) frontal plane sliding feet, where both feet travel in the same direction (ipsilaterally/contralaterally) and opposite to the CoM, and (2) frontal plane split feet, where both feet travel faster than the CoM and opposite to each other. Sagittal plane lower body models, on the other hand, revealed two biomechanical behaviors that are similar to those described in past literature ( 17 , 19 , 21 ): (1) sagittal plane split feet, where the leading foot travels faster than the CoM and opposite to the trailing foot, which travels opposite to both, and (2) sagittal plane forward sliding mechanism, where both feet travel with a velocity similar to that of the CoM. However, we believe that foot motion relative to the CoM is not the only contributor to falls and recoveries, and that upper body biomechanics play a crucial role in redistributing sagittal and frontal plane angular momentum from the trunk to the arms.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 83%
“…Hence, we presented our second hypothesis and demonstrated that the peak sagittal and frontal plane angular momentum of the trunk and non-dominant arm during the slipping timeline, respectively, were significant in classifying falls and recoveries. Despite extensive literature on the significance of peak trunk extension angle to both falls and recoveries (9,13,17,19,23,29,(42)(43)(44)(45), our variable selection process generated a model based on arm adduction angular momentum. This would indicate that bracing for impact by increasing arm adduction angular momentum is associated with higher fall probability.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…The purposes of this study were to address these questions by developing a causal-based assessment method, and investigate the causation of 97 falls (out of 195 communitydwelling older adults participated in this study) based on this method 24,34 . We first hypothesized that these participants were equally susceptible to the above-stated causal factors (null hypothesis).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%