Segmental and Intersegmental Coordination Characteristics of a Cognitive Movement Control Test: Quantifying Loss of Movement Choices

1Citations
Citations of this article
13Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Cognitive movement control tests are hypothesized to reveal reduced coordination variability, a feature of motor behaviour linked to clinical presentations. Exploration of this proposition via kinematic analysis of test pass and fail conditions is yet to be conducted. Kinematics (3D) were collected as 28 participants were qualitatively rated during nine trials of a cognitive movement control test. Ten female and two male participants passing the test were matched to twelve participants who failed (three males, nine females). Sagittal plane pelvis and knee angles were determined. Peak pelvic deviation and knee flexion maxima/minima were compared between groups. Classification tree analysis explored relationships between test failure and pelvis–knee intersegmental coordination strategy classifications derived from novel and traditional vector coding techniques. Coordination variability waveforms were assessed via SPM. Age, BMI, and knee flexion values did not differ between the groups (p > 0.05); however, participants rated as failing the test displayed greater pelvic deviation (p < 0.05). Classification tree analysis revealed a greater use of pelvic dominant intersegmental coordination strategies from both vector coding techniques (p < 0.001) by fail-group participants. The fail-group also displayed lower coordination variability for novel (p < 0.05), but not traditional (p > 0.05) vector coding technique waveforms, supporting the premise that the testing protocol may act as a qualitative approach to inform on features of motor behavior linked to clinical presentations.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Blandford, L., Cushion, E., & Mahaffey, R. (2022). Segmental and Intersegmental Coordination Characteristics of a Cognitive Movement Control Test: Quantifying Loss of Movement Choices. Biomechanics (Switzerland), 2(2), 213–234. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomechanics2020018

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free