No Influence of Mechatronic Poles on the Movement Pattern of Professional Nordic Walkers
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Design
2.2. Participants
2.3. Research Methods
- Fifteen temporal parameters characterizing the structure of the step cycle: step cadence (in step/min), characterizing mean number of steps per minute (step rate); stride time duration (s), as the time elapsed between the initial contacts of two consecutive footfalls of the same foot and characterizing mean cycle time; step time duration (s), as the time elapsed from the initial contact of one foot to the initial contact of the opposite foot; stance and swing phase relative duration (%), as the stance time normalized to stride time; single-support relative duration (%), as the time elapsed when only one foot is in contact with the ground between the last contact of the opposite footfall to the initial contact of the next footfall of the same foot, normalized to stride time; double support (%), as the sum of times when both feet are in contact with the ground simultaneously (twice at initial and terminal stance); loading response (%) (also known as “foot flat”), as the double-support time measured from initial contact until the contralateral foot leaves the ground (contralateral toe off); pre-swing (%), as the double-support time from the contralateral foot contact until the ipsilateral foot leaves the ground.
- Mean Range of Motion (ROM) in whole cycle expressed in angular degrees (deg), characterizing movements of the upper and lower extremities relative to the global coordinate system. In particular,
- for the upper extremity: shoulder flexion–extension, anterior or posterior movement of the humerus relative to the thorax in the sagittal plane; shoulder abduction–adduction, movement of the humerus relative to the thorax in the frontal plane; shoulder internal–external rotation, rotation of the humerus in the transversal plane; elbow flexion–extension, movement of the forearm relative to the humerus along the transversal axis; wrist flexion–extension, movement of wrist relative to the radius along the transversal axis and measured between the upper arm and hand sensors; wrist radial–ulnar, movement of wrist relative to the radius and measured between the upper arm and hand sensors; wrist supination–pronation, movement of wrist relative to the radius along the axis and measured between the upper arm and hand sensors
- for the lower extremity: hip flexion–extension, movement of the femur in the sagittal plane about the mediolateral axis; hip ab/adduction, movement of the femur with respect to the pelvis in the frontal plane; hip rotation, movement of the femur in the transversal plane due to rotation around the proximal–distal axis; knee flexion–extension, movement of the tibia with respect to the femur in the sagittal plane; ankle dorsi–plantarflexion, movement of the foot with respect to the tibia in the sagittal plane; ankle ab/adduction, movement of the foot in the transverse (global) plane; ankle inversion–eversion, movement of the foot in the frontal (global) plane.
2.4. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Temporal Parameters
3.2. Kinematic Parameters
4. Discussion
4.1. Kinematic Parameters
4.2. Temporal Parameters
4.3. Limitations of Research
5. Conclusions and Applications
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Kocur, P.; Wilk, M. Nordic Walking—New form of exercise in rehabilitation. Rehabil. Med. 2006, 10, 9–14. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
- Morgulec-Adamowicz, N.; Marszałek, J.; Jagustyn, P. Nordic Walking—A New Form of Adapted Physical Activity (A Literature Review). Hum. Mov. 2011, 12, 124–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roy, M.; Grattard, V.; Dinet, C.; Soares, A.V.; Decavel, P.; Sagawa, Y.J. Nordic walking influence on biomechanical parameters: A systematic review. Eur. J. Phys. Rehabil. Med. 2020, 56, 607–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Encarnación-Martínez, A.; Pérez-Soriano, P.; Llana-Belloch, S. Differences in Ground Reaction Forces and Shock Impacts Between Nordic Walking and Walking. Res. Q. Exerc. Sport 2015, 86, 94–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Park, S.K.; Yang, D.J.; Kang, Y.H.; Kim, J.H.; Uhm, Y.H.; Lee, Y.S. Effects of Nordic walking and walking on spatiotemporal gait parameters and ground reaction force. J. Phys. Ther. Sci. 2015, 27, 2891–2893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pellegrini, B.; Peyré-Tartaruga, L.A.; Zoppirolli, C.; Bortolan, L.; Savoldelli, A.; Minetti, A.E.; Schena, F. Mechanical energy patterns in nordic walking: Comparisons with conventional walking. Gait Posture 2017, 51, 234–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stief, F.; Kleindienst, F.I.; Wiemeyer, J.; Wedel, F.; Campe, S.; Krabbe, B. Inverse Dynamic Analysis of the Lower Extremities during Nordic Walking, Walking, and Running. J. Appl. Biomech. 2008, 24, 351–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zoffoli, L.; Ditroilo, M.; Federici, A.; Lucertini, F. Patterns of trunk muscle activation during walking and pole walking using statistical non-parametric mapping. J. Electromyogr. Kinesiol. 2017, 37, 52–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pellegrini, B.; Peyré-Tartaruga, L.A.; Zoppirolli, C.; Bortolan, L.; Bacchi, E.; Figard-Fabre, H.; Schena, F. Exploring Muscle Activation during Nordic Walking: A Comparison between Conventional and Uphill Walking. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0138906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hanuszkiewicz, J.; Woźniewski, M.; Malicka, I. The Influence of Nordic Walking on Isokinetic Trunk Muscle Endurance and Sagittal Spinal Curvatures in Women after Breast Cancer Treatment: Age-Specific Indicators. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 2409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dziubek, W.; Stefańska, M.; Bulińska, K.; Barska, K.; Paszkowski, R.; Kropielnicka, K.; Jasiński, R.; Rachwalik, A.; Woźniewski, M.; Szuba, A. Effects of Physical Rehabilitation on Spatiotemporal Gait Parameters and Ground Reaction Forces of Patients with Intermittent Claudication. J. Clin. Med. 2020, 9, 2826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pietraszewski, B.; Woźniewski, M.; Jasiński, R.; Struzik, A.; Szuba, A. Changes in Gait Variables in Patients with Intermittent Claudication. BioMed Res. Int. 2019, 2019, 7276865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Wudarczyk, S.; Szrek, J.; Balchanowski, J.; Lewadndowski, B.; Mroz, S.; Jasinski, R.; Niebudek, T.; Wozniewski, M. Research on the Mechatronic Gait Monitoring System with Nordic Walking Poles. In Modern Trends in Theory of Machines and Mechatronic Systems; Bałchanowski, J., Gronowicz, A., Szrek, J., Eds.; Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc.: Manhattan, NY, USA, 2020; p. 9. ISBN 9781728169569. [Google Scholar]
- Mocera, F.; Aquilino, G.; Somà, A. Nordic Walking Performance Analysis with an Integrated Monitoring System. Sensors 2018, 18, 1505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Mundt, M.; Thomsen, W.; David, S.; Dupré, T.; Bamer, F.; Potthast, W.; Markert, B. Assessment of the measurement accuracy of inertial sensors during different tasks of daily living. J. Biomech. 2019, 84, 81–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cottam, D.S.; Campbell, A.C.; Davey, M.P.C.; Kent, P.; Elliott, B.C.; Alderson, J.A. Measurement of uni-planar and sport specific trunk motion using magneto-inertial measurement units: The concurrent validity of Noraxon and Xsens systems relative to a retro-reflective system. Gait Posture 2022, 92, 129–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bałchanowski, J.; Muraszkowski, A.; Szrek, J.; Wudarczyk, S.; Lewandowski, B.; Mróz, S.; Jasiński, R.; Niebudek, T.; Pietraszewski, B.; Woźniewski, M. Developing a methodology for testing Nordic Walking gait with mechatronic poles in the rehabilitation of selected diseases. Interdiscip. J. Eng. Sci. 2018, 6, 54–60. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
- Szrek, J.; Muraszkowski, A.; Bałchanowski, J.; Wudarczyk, S.; Jasiński, R.; Niebudek, T.; Woźniewski, M. Force Measurement Module for Mechatronic Nordic Walking Poles. In Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 790–794. [Google Scholar]
- Wu, G.; van der Helm, F.C.; Veeger, H.E.J.; Makhsous, M.; Van Roy, P.; Anglin, C.; Nagels, J.; Karduna, A.R.; McQuade, K.; Wang, X.; et al. ISB recommendation on definitions of joint coordinate systems of various joints for the reporting of human joint motion—Part II: Shoulder, elbow, wrist and hand. J. Biomech. 2005, 38, 981–992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, G.; Siegler, S.; Allard, P.; Kirtley, C.; Leardini, A.; Rosenbaum, D.; Whittle, M.; D’Lima, D.D.; Cristofolini, L.; Witte, H.; et al. ISB recommendation on definitions of joint coordinate system of various joints for the reporting of human joint motion—Part I: Ankle, hip, and spine. J. Biomech. 2002, 35, 543–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, G.; Cavanagh, P.R. ISB recommendations for standardization in the reporting of kinematic data. J. Biomech. 1995, 28, 1257–1261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pietraszewski, B.; Winiarski, S.; Jaroszczuk, S. Three-dimensional human gait pattern—Reference data for normal men. Acta Bioeng. Biomech. 2012, 14, 9–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Winiarski, S.; Pietraszewska, J.; Pietraszewski, B. Three-Dimensional Human Gait Pattern: Reference Data for Young, Active Women Walking with Low, Preferred, and High Speeds. BioMed Res. Int. 2019, 2019, 9232430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Participants | Body Height (cm) | Body Mass (kg) | Seniority (Years) |
---|---|---|---|
Women | |||
Case1 | 178 | 57 | 10 |
Case2 | 169 | 58 | 10 |
Case3 | 165 | 55 | 15 |
Mean ± SD | 170.66 ± 6.66 | 56.67 ± 1.53 | 11.67 ± 2.89 |
Men | |||
Case4 | 177 | 77 | 10 |
Case5 | 178 | 79 | 16 |
Case6 | 175 | 76 | 20 |
Mean ± SD | 176.67 ± 1.53 | 77.33 ± 1.53 | 15.33 ± 5.03 |
Parameters | Gait without a Pole (1) Mean ± SD | Gait with a Standard Pole (2) Mean ± SD | Gait with a Mechatronic Pole (3) Mean ± SD | p-Value for the ANOVA Test | Sign. Difference (1)–(2)–(3) (by Post Hoc Test) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Step cadence (step/min) | 114.91 ± 8.16 | 114.56 ± 6.5 | 113.46 ± 8.04 | 0.726 | ||
Stride time duration (s) | 1.049 ± 0.077 | 1.052 ± 0.061 | 1.065 ± 0.075 | 0.603 | ||
Step time duration (s) | LT | 0.523 ± 0.038 | 0.519 ± 0.040 | 0.540 ± 0.053 | 0.652 | |
RT | 0.526 ± 0.040 | 0.532 ± 0.043 | 0.524 ± 0.026 | |||
Stance phase (%) | LT | 59.90 ± 1.16 | 57.71 ± 1.28 | 57.48 ± 1.13 | 0.001 | (1)–(2) |
RT | 59.8 0± 1.65 | 57.15 ± 3.01 | 58.18 ± 1.11 | (1)–(3) | ||
Swing phase (%) | LT | 40.10 ± 1.16 | 42.29 ± 1.28 | 42.52 ± 1.13 | 0.001 | (1)–(2) |
RT | 40.20 ± 1.65 | 42.85 ± 3.01 | 41.82 ± 1.11 | (1)–(3) | ||
Single support (%) | LT | 40.19 ± 1.6 | 42.43 ± 2.37 | 41.18 ± 2.16 | 0.004 | (1)–(2) |
RT | 40.06 ± 1.09 | 41.86 ± 1.50 | 41.78 ± 0.88 | |||
Double support (%) | 19.72 ± 2.65 | 14.58 ± 2.98 | 16.36 ± 1.76 | 0.019 | (1)–(2) | |
Loading response (%) | LT | 9.92 ± 1.07 | 7.81 ± 1.69 | 7.66 ± 0.73 | <0.001 | (1)–(2) |
RT | 9.78 ± 1.74 | 7.48 ± 2.02 | 8.27 ± 1.11 | (1)–(3) | ||
Pre-swing (%) | LT | 9.77 ± 1.80 | 7.51 ± 2.02 | 8.61 ± 1.57 | 0.001 | (1)–(2) |
RT | 9.95 ± 1.08 | 7.86 ± 1.68 | 8.15 ± 1.33 | (1)–(3) |
Parameters (deg) | Gait without a Pole (1) Mean ± SD | Gait with a Standard Pole (2) Mean ± SD | Gait with a Mechatronic Pole (3) Mean ± SD | p-Value for the ANOVA or F Test | Significant (1)–(2)–(3) (Post Hoc Test) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Upper limb movements | ||||||
Shoulder flexion–extension | LT | 35.98 ± 9.08 | 35.8 ± 4.08 | 38 ± 8.61 | 0.662 | |
RT | 38.27 ± 10.68 | 38.4 ± 6.99 | 41.55 ± 10.33 | |||
Shoulder ab/adduction | LT | 12.23 ± 6.48 | 12.26 ± 3.83 | 15.48 ± 8.48 | 0.262 | |
RT | 13.69 ± 7.75 | 22.03 ± 8.24 | 21.36 ± 8.9 | |||
Shoulder rotation | LT | 31.56 ± 13.65 | 40.11 ± 12.49 | 38.31 ± 13.63 | 0.549 | |
RT | 48.15 ± 24 | 47.37 ± 23.86 | 44.12 ± 21.15 | |||
Elbow flexion–extension | LT | 40.26 ± 9.74 | 34.86 ± 5.41 | 32.09 ± 4.42 | 0.054 | |
RT | 31.2 ± 10.55 | 24.67 ± 12.32 | 25.77 ± 11.46 | |||
Wrist flexion–extension | LT | 16.92 ± 14.22 | 21.39 ± 5.58 | 20.95 ± 8.17 | 0.532 | |
RT | 14.1 ± 9.59 | 17.39 ± 4.4 | 15.93 ± 9.65 | |||
Wrist radial–ulnar | LT | 13.32 ± 6.24 | 23.58 ± 7.19 | 25.56 ± 3.06 | 0.001 | (1)–(2) |
RT | 10.65 ± 3.69 | 22.38 ± 5.09 | 22.16 ± 6.49 | (1)–(3) | ||
Wrist supination–pronation | LT | 25 ± 12.26 | 43.53 ± 10.01 | 43.91 ± 8.14 | 0.022 | (1)–(2) |
RT | 39.37 ± 11.06 | 47.67 ± 15.1 | 59.95 ± 14.87 | (1)–(3) | ||
Lower limb movements | ||||||
Hip flexion –extension | LT | 64.99 ± 7.29 | 70.42 ± 8.95 | 71.3 ± 6.76 | 0.001 | (1)–(2) |
RT | 63.04 ± 6.91 | 70.56 ± 7.04 | 72.17 ± 4.99 | (1)–(3) | ||
Hip ab/adduction | LT | 16.5 ± 3.99 | 15.09 ± 3.26 | 14.63 ± 3.03 | 0.563 | |
RT | 16.79 ± 5.14 | 15.64 ± 1.92 | 16.9 ± 2.82 | |||
Hip rotation | LT | 21.1 ± 1.77 | 24.68 ± 3.52 | 24.65 ± 3.34 | 0.198 | |
RT | 24.3 ± 6.9 | 25.08 ± 7.7 | 26.12 ± 4.15 | |||
Knee flexion–extension | LT | 68.12 ± 2.67 | 67.92 ± 5.66 | 68.65 ± 2.24 | 0.887 | |
RT | 67.49 ± 3.91 | 66.68 ± 5.3 | 65.87 ± 4.74 | |||
Ankle dorsi–plantarflexion | LT | 35.5 ± 5.41 | 37.59 ± 10.09 | 36.52 ± 8.68 | 0.698 | |
RT | 40.38 ± 5.82 | 38.14 ± 10.12 | 35.16 ± 9.11 | |||
Ankle ab/adduction | LT | 18.3 ± 5.92 | 15.3 ± 4.87 | 14.5 ± 3.29 | 0.043 | (1)–(3) |
RT | 15.76 ± 4.63 | 14.46 ± 2.75 | 12.52 ± 2.31 | |||
Ankle inversion–eversion | LT | 19.22 ± 4.72 | 14.5 ± 2.96 | 14.07 ± 4.15 | 0.024 | (1)–(2) |
RT | 17.46 ± 5.53 | 13.17 ± 2.25 | 14.9 ± 6.11 | (1)–(3) |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Szpala, A.; Winiarski, S.; Kołodziej, M.; Pietraszewski, B.; Jasiński, R.; Niebudek, T.; Lejczak, A.; Lorek, K.; Bałchanowski, J.; Wudarczyk, S.; et al. No Influence of Mechatronic Poles on the Movement Pattern of Professional Nordic Walkers. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 163. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20010163
Szpala A, Winiarski S, Kołodziej M, Pietraszewski B, Jasiński R, Niebudek T, Lejczak A, Lorek K, Bałchanowski J, Wudarczyk S, et al. No Influence of Mechatronic Poles on the Movement Pattern of Professional Nordic Walkers. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2023; 20(1):163. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20010163
Chicago/Turabian StyleSzpala, Agnieszka, Sławomir Winiarski, Małgorzata Kołodziej, Bogdan Pietraszewski, Ryszard Jasiński, Tadeusz Niebudek, Andrzej Lejczak, Karolina Lorek, Jacek Bałchanowski, Sławomir Wudarczyk, and et al. 2023. "No Influence of Mechatronic Poles on the Movement Pattern of Professional Nordic Walkers" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 20, no. 1: 163. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20010163