بررسی متغیرهای فشار کف پایی در افراد نابینا در مقایسه با همسالان سالم

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 استادیار رفتارحرکتی، گروه تربیت بدنی و علوم ورزشی، دانشکده علوم تربیتی و روانشناسی، دانشگاه محقق اردبیلی، اردبیل، ایران

2 استایار بیومکانیک ورزشی، گروه تربیت بدنی و علوم ورزشی، دانشکده علوم تربیتی و روانشناسی، دانشگاه محقق اردبیلی، اردبیل، ایران

3 کارشناس ارشد بیومکانیک ورزشی، گروه تربیت بدنی و علوم ورزشی، دانشکده علوم تربیتی و روانشناسی، دانشگاه محقق اردبیلی، اردبیل، ایران

چکیده

مقدمه و اهداف
امروزه متغیرهای فشار کف پایی یکی از پارامترهای مهم در تحلیل بیومکانیک راه رفتن می­باشد. هدف از پژوهش حاضر بررسی متغیرهای فشار کف پایی در افراد نابینا در مقایسه با همسالان سالم بود.
مواد و روش­ ها
14 مرد نابینا و 16 مرد سالم داوطلب شرکت در مطالعه حاضر شدند. برای اندازه­گیری متغیرهای فشار کف پایی طی مرحله استانس راه رفتن از دستگاه فوت اسکن استفاده شد. داده­های متغیر­های فشار کف پایی با فرکانس نمونه­برداری 300 هرتز ثبت شد. جهت تحلیل­های آماری از آزمون آنالیز واریانس چندمتغیره استفاده شد. سطح معناداری برابر 05/0 بود.
یافته ­ها
یافته­ها نشان داد سرعت راه رفتن افراد نابینا در مقایسه با افراد سالم کمتر بود (05/0>p). نتایج نشان داد زمان رسیدن به اوج اولیه منحنی نیروی عمودی عکس ­العمل زمین در لحظه برخورد پاشنه (001/0=p)، میانه اتکا (004/0=p) و جدا شدن پنجه پا (002/0=p) در گروه نابینا در مقایسه با گروه سالم به ترتیب برابر 7/42، 4/36، و 8/23 میلی­ثانیه بالاتر بود. نرخ بارگذاری عمودی در گروه نابینا در مقایسه با افراد سالم حدود 2/32 درصد کمتر بود (002/0=p). میزان جابه­جایی مرکز فشار در راستای قدامی-خلفی در گروه نابینا حدود 1/8 درصد کمتر از گروه سالم بود (008/0=p). در متغیرها فشار کف پایی و اوج نیروها بین دو گروه اختلاف معناداری مشاهده نشد (05/0<p).
نتیجه­ گیری
به نظر می‌رسد سرعت پایین راه رفتن در افراد نابینا و همسان بودن اوج نیروها و متغیرهای فشار کف پایی می­توان بیان نمود این افراد در ریسک آسیب بیشتری در مقایسه با افراد سالم قرار دارند.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله [English]

Evaluation of Plantar Pressure Variables in Blind Individuals Compared to Healthy Controls

نویسندگان [English]

  • Mahrokh Dehghani 1
  • AmirAli Jafarnezhadgero 2
  • Mohammad Abdollahpour darvishani 3
1 Department of Physical Education and Sport Sciences, Faculty of Educational Science and Psychology, University of Mohaghegh Ardabili, Ardabil, Iran
2 Assistant Professor, Department of Physical Education and Sport Sciences, Faculty of Educational Sciences and Psychology, University of Mohaghegh Ardabili, Ardabil, Iran
3 MSc. of Sport Biomechanics, Department of Physical Education and Sport Sciences, Faculty of Education Sciences and Psychology, University of Mohaghegh Ardabili, Ardabil, Iran
چکیده [English]

Background and Aims: The Frequency Domain analysis of Ground reaction forces is one of the mechanical parameters that play a significant role in the vulnerability of people while walking and running. The purpose of the present study was to compare the frequency domain analysis of ground reaction forces in deaf and healthy control people during running.
Materials and Methods: A quasi-experimental study was carried out on 30 males who were equally divided into a healthy group and a group with hearing loss problems (Deaf group). Peak plantar pressure variables in deaf individuals and healthy controls were recorded using a foot scan system (sample rate: 300 Hz).
Results: The results showed that the frequency content with the number of essential harmonies in the Toe foot (p= 0.012) and foot finger 2 to 5 (p=0/035) in deaf were smaller than those of the healthy controls. Also, the frequency content with power 99.5% in the fourth metatarsal (P=0.038) and fifth metatarsal (P=0.019) in deaf were greater than those of the healthy controls. Moreover, stance time during running in deaf group was more than that of the healthy control group (p=0.032).
Conclusion: Stance time during running in deaf group was more than that of the healthy control group, which has the potential for injury in these people.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Frequency domain of ground reaction forces
  • Running
  • Deaf
1. Gasperetti B, Milford M, Blanchard D, Yang SP, Lieberman L, Foley JT. Dance Dance Revolution and EyeToy Kinetic modifications for youths with visual impairments. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance. 2010;81(4):15-55.##

2. Organization WH, editor Visual impairment and blindness- Fact Sheet N° 282. August 2014. Availableonlineat: http://www.who. int/media Centre/factsheets/fs282/en. ##

3. AhmadinBA, Ahmadi BS, Ghaeini S, Behpour N, Letafatkar A. Comparing the effect of mental, physical and mental-physical exercises on the balance capability of blind students. 2013. ##

4. A DGD. Professional physical Education of low vision children. Sawtsky sport press 2000(Moscow). ##

5. Aylar MF, Firouzi F, Araghi MR. Influence of time restriction, 20 minutes and 94.6 months, of visual information on angular displacement during the sit-to-stand (STS) task in three planes. Journal of physical therapy science. 2016;28(12):3330-6. ##

6. Hamill J, Knutzen KM. Biomechanical basis of human movement: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2006. ##

7. Monteiro M, Gabriel R, Aranha J, e Castro MN, Sousa M, Moreira M. Influence of obesity and sarcopenic obesity on plantar pressure of postmenopausal women. Clinical Biomechanics. 2010;25(5):461-7. ##

8. Leitch KM, Birmingham TB, Jones IC, Giffin JR, Jenkyn TR. In-shoe plantar pressure measurements for patients with knee osteoarthritis: Reliability and effects of lateral heel wedges. Gait & posture. 2011;34(3):391-6. ##

9. Keijsers N, Stolwijk N, Nienhuis B, Duysens J. A new method to normalize plantar pressure measurements for foot size and foot progression angle. Journal of Biomechanics. 2009;42(1):87-90. ##

10. De Cock A, Willems T, Witvrouw E, Vanrenterghem J, De Clercq D. A functional foot type classification with cluster analysis based on plantar pressure distribution during jogging. Gait & posture. 2006;23(3):339-47. ##

11. Abdul Razak AH, Zayegh A, Begg RK, Wahab Y. Foot plantar pressure measurement system: A review. Sensors. 2012;12(7):9884-912. ##

12. Rai D, Aggarwal L. The study of plantar pressure distribution in normal and pathological foot. Pol J Med Phys Eng. 2006;12(1):25-34. ##

13. Bonato P. Wearable sensors/systems and their impact on biomedical engineering. IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Magazine. 2003;22(3):18-20. ##

14. Rodgers MM. Dynamic biomechanics of the normal foot and ankle during walking and running. Physical therapy. 1988;68(12):1822-30. ##

15. Armstrong DG, Peters EJ, Athanasiou KA, Lavery LA. Is there a critical level of plantar foot pressure to identify patients at risk for neuropathic foot ulceration? The Journal of foot and ankle surgery. 1998;37(4):303-7. ##

16. Aylar MF. Control of Lower Extremity Joint Moments During Sit-to-Stand Among Blind Children. Journal of Clinical Engineering. 2017;42(4):189-93. ##

17. Azevedo RR, da Rocha ES, Franco PS, Carpes FP. Plantar pressure asymmetry and risk of stress injuries in the foot of young soccer players. Physical Therapy in Sport. 2017;24:39-43. ##

18. McKay MJ, Baldwin JN, Ferreira P, Simic M, Vanicek N, Wojciechowski E, et al. Spatiotemporal and plantar pressure patterns of 1000 healthy individuals aged 3–101 years. Gait & posture. 2017;58:78-87. ##

19. Jafarnezhadgero AA, Shad MM, Majlesi M. Effect of foot orthoses on the medial longitudinal arch in children with flexible flatfoot deformity: A three-dimensional moment analysis. Gait & posture. 2017;55:75-80. ##

20. Farahpour N, Jafarnezhad A, Damavandi M, Bakhtiari A, Allard P. Gait ground reaction force characteristics of low back pain patients with pronated foot and able-bodied individuals with and without foot pronation. Journal of biomechanics. 2016;49(9):1705-10. ##

21. Jafarnezhadgero AA, Shad MM, Majlesi M, Granacher U. A comparison of running kinetics in children with and without genu varus. 2017. ##

22. Hase K, Stein R. Analysis of rapid stopping during human walking. Journal of neurophysiology. 1998;80(1):255-61. ##

23. Jaeger R, Vanitchatchavan P. Ground reaction forces during termination of human gait. Journal of biomechanics. 1992;25(10):1233-6. ##

24. Sparrow W, Tirosh O. Gait termination: a review of experimental methods and the effects of ageing and gait pathologies. Gait & posture. 2005;22(4):362-71. ##

25. Jian Y, Winter D, Ishac M, Gilchrist L. Trajectory of the body COG and COP during initiation and termination of gait. Gait Posture 1993;1(1):9-22. ##

26. Shumway-Cook A, Woollacott MH. Motor control: translating research into clinical practice: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2007. ##

27. Juodžbalienė V, Muckus K. The influence of the degree of visual impairment on psychomotor reaction and equilibrium maintenance of adolescents. Medicina. 2006;42(1):49-56. ##

28. Congdon NG, Friedman DS, Lietman T. Important causes of visual impairment in the world today. Jama. 2003;290(15):2057-60. ##

29. Headon R, Curwen R, editors. Recognizing movements from the ground reaction force. Proceedings of the 2001 workshop on Perceptive user interfaces; 2001: ACM. ##

30. Richards J. Biomechanics in Clinic and Research: An interactive teaching and learning course, Churchill Livingstone. Elsevier, China; 2008. ##

31. Riskowski JL, Mikesky A, Bahamonde RE, Alvey III T, Burr DB. Proprioception, gait kinematics, and rate of loading during walking: are they related? 2005. ##

32. Creaby MW, May K, Bennell KL. Insole effects on impact loading during walking. Ergonomics. 2011;54(7):665-71. ##

33. Saeedi H, Yazdani M, Ghasemi MS, Nabavi H, Mohammadpour A, Kamali M. The Effect of Standard and Beveled Heels of Orthopedic Shoe on Vertical Ground Reaction Forces during Walking in Healthy Subjects. Archives of Rehabilitation. 2013;14(3):47-55. ##