Examination of a practical method to quantitatively evaluate the rolling over movement in a clinical setting.
Yuki Yamanaka, Tomohito Mizuno, Hiroyuki Yamamoto and 1 others
PMID 39092410WHAT IT FOUND
Wearable sensors on the forehead, sternum, and abdomen matched 3D motion capture for measuring neck and trunk angles during rolling over in two healthy adults.
This offers a practical, low-cost way to assess movement quality in clinics, but needs testing in patients.
Key findings
01The study tested a method using three wearable inertial and magnetic sensors placed on the forehead, sternum, and abdomen to estimate neck and trunk angles and velocity during rolling over, comparing them to a 3D motion analysis system.
02In two healthy volunteers, the wearable sensors showed high agreement with the 3D motion capture system for neck and trunk angles, with mean cross-correlation values of 0.83 for the male and 0.85 for the female, and mean root mean square angle differences of 4.9° and 5.3° respectively.
03The sensors also accurately estimated center of mass velocity, with a mean cross-correlation of 0.89 between the two methods, suggesting this low-cost approach could help clinicians quantitatively assess the mechanics of rolling over.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The study included only two healthy volunteers with standard body types, so the results do not apply to patients with neurological impairments, obesity, or orthopedic conditions who are the primary users of rolling-over assessments. The accuracy of the sensors was tested against a specific 3D motion capture system in a controlled lab setting; it is unknown if the method remains accurate in a busy clinical environment. The authors note potential limitations in capturing complex trunk rotations during the latter half of the movement, which may affect the accuracy of velocity estimates. This is a validation study of a measurement tool, not a clinical trial; it does not show that using this method improves patient outcomes or treatment decisions.
Declared interests
The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not assume this sensor method is ready for clinical use with patients. The study validated the technology in only two healthy adults with standard body types, so its accuracy in individuals with spasticity, weakness, or different body shapes is unproven.