SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

 
vol.24 número2Benefícios e riscos da prática de atividade física recreativa e/ou esportiva por pessoas com epilepsia índice de autoresíndice de assuntospesquisa de artigos
Home Pagelista alfabética de periódicos  

Serviços Personalizados

Journal

Artigo

Indicadores

Links relacionados

Compartilhar


Fisioterapia em Movimento

versão On-line ISSN 1980-5918

Resumo

FOLTRAN, Fabiana Almeida; SILVA, Luciana Cristina da Cunha Bueno; SATO, Tatiana de Oliveira  e  COURY, Helenice Jane Cote Gil. What electrogoniometry sensor is most suitable for measuring wrist movement?. Fisioter. mov. (Impr.) [online]. 2011, vol.24, n.2, pp.357-366. ISSN 1980-5918.  https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-51502011000200017.

INTRODUCTION: Electrogoniometers have been used to record wrist movements during work. However, different sizes of sensors are used making the comparison of recordings difficult. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate two different sensors in order to check its performance in an anthropometric defined sample. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Thirteen subjects (7 women and 6 men; age 23 ± 2.6 years; weight 57 ± 3.8 kg and height 1.63 ± 4.1 m) participated in this study. Two sensors with 65 and 110 mm of length (XM110 and XM65, respectively) and an acquisition data device (Datalog, Biometrics) were used to collect data. Anthropometric measurements of participants were recorded. Each subject performed flexion/extension and ulnar/radial wrist movement, reaching maximum amplitude in the pronated forearm position. The movement order and sensor placement were randomized. The data were analyzed descriptively and statistically (multivariate analysis). The intra-individual variation (root mean square - RMS - between trials) were calculated. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the sensors for all movements. The maximum intra individual variation was 2.2º. There were significant differences between genders for wrist flexion and ulnar deviation, women have higher values than men. The maximum variability between sensors was 7.1º. CONCLUSION: Although no significant difference was identified between sensors, it was found that the sensor XM110 suffered bulging during the extension. Therefore, for individuals with height up to 1.8 m, the data obtained by different sensors are comparable

Palavras-chave : Motion; Primary prevention; Anthropometry; Range of motion; Articular.

        · resumo em Português     · texto em Português     · Português ( pdf )

 

Creative Commons License Todo o conteúdo deste periódico, exceto onde está identificado, está licenciado sob uma Licença Creative Commons