Wrist electrogoniometry: are current mathematical correction procedures effective in reducing crosstalk in functional assessment?

Abstract

| Background: The recording of human movement is an essential requirement for biomechanical, clinical, and occupational analysis, allowing assessment of postural variation, occupational risks, and preventive programs in physical therapy and rehabilitation. The flexible electrogoniometer (EGM), considered a reliable and accurate device, is used for dynamic recordings of different joints. Despite these advantages, the EGM is susceptible to measurement errors, known as crosstalk. There are two known types of crosstalk: crosstalk due to sensor rotation and inherent crosstalk. Correction procedures have been proposed to correct these errors; however no study has used both procedures in clinical measures for wrist movements with the aim to optimize the correction. Objective: To evaluate the effects of mathematical correction procedures on: 1) crosstalk due to forearm rotation, 2) inherent sensor crosstalk; and 3) the combination of these two procedures. Method: 43 healthy subjects had their maximum range of motion of wrist flexion/ extension and ulnar/radials deviation recorded by EGM. The results were analyzed descriptively, and procedures were compared by differences. Results: There was no significant difference in measurements before and after the application of correction procedures (P≤0.05). Furthermore, the differences between the correction procedures were less than 5° in most cases, having little impact on the measurements. Conclusions: Considering the time-consuming data analysis, the specific technical knowledge involved, and the inefficient results, the correction procedures are not recommended for wrist recordings by EGM. Keywords: reproducibility of results; physical therapy; health evaluation. HOW TO CITE THIS ARTICLE Foltran FA, Silva LCCB, Sato TO, Coury HJCG. Wrist electrogoniometry: are current mathematical correction procedures effective in reducing crosstalk in functional assessment? Braz J Phys Ther. 2013 Jan-Feb; 17(1):32-40. http://dx.