Physiological Responses, Rating of Perceived Exertion, and Stride Characteristics During Walking on Dry Land and Walking in Water, Both With and Without a Water Current

Mitsudo, Kenji; Hamada, Ayumi; Tomonaga, Hiro Omi; Kodama, Kota; Hotta, Noboru

doi:10.1123/jsr.21.2.175

Cited by 14 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 22 publications

(43 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…On land, step and stride lengths were larger than in water which is consistent with findings in the literature ( Barela and Duarte, 2008 ; Masumoto et al, 2012 ; Masumoto et al, 2008 ). Also, these variables were larger in FW walking than BW walking.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Kinematic Adaptations of Forward and Backward Walking on Land and in Water

Cadenas‐Sanchez

Arellano

Vanrenterghem

et al. 2015

Journal of Human Kinetics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to compare sagittal plane lower limb kinematics during walking on land and submerged to the hip in water. Eight healthy adults (age 22.1 ± 1.1 years, body height 174.8 ± 7.1 cm, body mass 63.4 ± 6.2 kg) were asked to cover a distance of 10 m at comfortable speed with controlled step frequency, walking forward or backward. Sagittal plane lower limb kinematics were obtained from three dimensional video analysis to compare spatiotemporal gait parameters and joint angles at selected events using two-way repeated measures ANOVA. Key findings were a reduced walking speed, stride length, step length and a support phase in water, and step length asymmetry was higher compared to the land condition (p<0.05). At initial contact, knees and hips were more flexed during walking forward in water, whilst, ankles were more dorsiflexed during walking backward in water. At final stance, knees and ankles were more flexed during forward walking, whilst the hip was more flexed during backward walking. These results show how walking in water differs from walking on land, and provide valuable insights into the development and prescription of rehabilitation and training programs.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Kinematic Adaptations of Forward and Backward Walking on Land and in Water

Cadenas‐Sanchez

Arellano

Vanrenterghem

et al. 2015

Journal of Human Kinetics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This test was conducted in five of the studies [ 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 ], in both an aquatic and a dry environment in all cases. In terms of differences in the neuromuscular response between the two environments, there were discrepancies between the different articles.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Cardiorespiratory response was evaluated in the studies by Alberton et al [ 21 ], Masumoto et al [ 18 ] and Masumoto et al [ 19 ]. Similarities were found between the Alberton et al [ 21 ] and Masumoto et al [ 19 ] studies, with both reporting significant differences between the two environments according to the rate of step at which the test was carried out.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Identification of Tools for the Functional and Subjective Assessment of Patients in an Aquatic Environment: A Systematic Review

Cuesta‐Vargas

Martín-Martín

Gónzalez-Sánchez

et al. 2020

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aquatic therapy is one of the most common treatments for alleviating musculoskeletal pathologies. Its effectiveness has been evaluated with functional tests and questionnaires. Functional tests are used in aquatic therapy; however, in most cases, they are carried out in a non-aquatic environment and, as such, their results may differ from those of tests performed in an aquatic environment. A systematic review was performed to assess the accuracy of functional tests and patient-reported outcomes to assess aquatic therapy interventions. The authors conducted a literature search in July 2019. In total, 70,863 records were identified after duplicates removed. Of these, 14 records were included about functional tests assessment in aquatic environment and 725 records for questionnaires. The majority of the tests had also been assessed in a dry environment, allowing differences and similarities between the tests in the two environments to be observed. Different variables have been assessed in tests included in the present systematic review (cardiorespiratory, neuromuscular, kinematic, physiological, kinetic responses and rating of perceived exertion) which are included in the manuscript. Visual Analogue Scale, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index and the 12-item Short Form Health Survey were the assessments most commonly used by the different authors.

show abstract

“…Besides swimming and head-out aquatic exercises (where the upper limbs are also responsible for some actions) [28], all remaining movements/exercises simulate patterns that are similar and/or are performed equally in a dry land environment [29,30]. Overall, the data gathered from this analysis revealed that all studies analyzed movements based on lower limb kinematics (i.e., actions responsible for displacement: walking; and for the exercise: squats).…”

Section: Monitoring Applicationsmentioning

confidence: 98%

The Use of Wearable Sensors in Human Movement Analysis in Non-Swimming Aquatic Activities: A Systematic Review

Marinho

Neiva

Morais

2019

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The use of smart technology, specifically inertial sensors (accelerometers, gyroscopes, and magnetometers), to analyze swimming kinematics is being reported in the literature. However, little is known about the usage/application of such sensors in other human aquatic exercises. As the sensors are getting smaller, less expensive, and simple to deal with (regarding data acquisition), one might consider that its application to a broader range of exercises should be a reality. The aim of this systematic review was to update the state of the art about the framework related to the use of sensors assessing human movement in an aquatic environment, besides swimming. The following databases were used: IEEE Xplore, Pubmed, Science Direct, Scopus, and Web of Science. Five articles published in indexed journals, aiming to assess human exercises/movements in the aquatic environment were reviewed. The data from the five articles was categorized and summarized based on the aim, purpose, participants, sensor’s specifications, body area and variables analyzed, and data analysis and statistics. The analyzed studies aimed to compare the movement/exercise kinematics between environments (i.e., dry land versus aquatic), and in some cases compared healthy to pathological participants. The use of sensors in a rehabilitation/hydrotherapy perspective may provide major advantages for therapists.

show abstract

Physiological Responses, Rating of Perceived Exertion, and Stride Characteristics During Walking on Dry Land and Walking in Water, Both With and Without a Water Current

Cited by 14 publications

References 22 publications

Kinematic Adaptations of Forward and Backward Walking on Land and in Water

Kinematic Adaptations of Forward and Backward Walking on Land and in Water

Identification of Tools for the Functional and Subjective Assessment of Patients in an Aquatic Environment: A Systematic Review

The Use of Wearable Sensors in Human Movement Analysis in Non-Swimming Aquatic Activities: A Systematic Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About