Practice-based skill acquisition of pushrim-activated power-assisted wheelchair propulsion versus regular handrim propulsion in novices

BACKGROUND: Regular handrim wheelchair (RHW) propulsion is straining for the upper extremities and wheelchair users often experience overuse problems. A recent advancement in wheelchair technology that could assist users is the pushrim-activated power-assisted wheelchair (PAPAW). PAPAWs are challenging to control, yet it is unclear how people learn to use a PAPAW. The purpose of this study is to examine early skill acquisition through practice in PAPAWs and compare it with RHWs. METHODS: Twenty-four able-bodied novices were randomly allocated to either the RHW group or the PAPAW group. The experiment consisted of five sessions with three blocks of 4 min steady-state practice at 1.11 m/s and 0.21 W/kg. Finally, a transfer to the other mode was made. Data were collected with a drag-test, breath-by-breath spirometry, and a motion capture system. The last minute of each four-minute block was used for analysis. A mixed analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for group, time, and interaction effects. RESULTS: Both groups improved their (assisted) mechanical efficiency, reduced their stroke rate, right-left and forward-backward deviation on the treadmill, and had a lower rate of perceived exertion (RPE) over time. (Assisted) mechanical efficiency was higher for the PAPAW group than for the RHW group and RPE was lower. However, left-right and forward-backward deviation was also found to be higher in the PAPAW group. CONCLUSIONS: At the group level the energetic cost of RHW and PAPAW propulsion can be lowered through low-intensity practice in novice users. The PAPAW is more 'efficient' than the RHW given the reduced energy requirement of the user from the motor assist, but more difficult to control. Future studies on PAPAWs should focus on the control needs of the user and their interaction with the power-assist technology

Effect of awareness of being monitored on wearing of orthopaedic footwear

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of awareness of being monitored on wearing time and adherence to wearing orthopaedic footwear. Quantitative assessment of wearing time was made using direct measurement with temperature sensors during the first 3 months after provision of footwear. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. INTERVENTION: Awareness that the temperature sensor is used for measuring wearing time. METHODS: All 55 participants had a temperature sensor built into the medial arch of the left insole of their orthopaedic footwear. Participants were assigned randomly to either an "awareness group" (n = 25, mean age 67 years) and knew they were being monitored for wearing time, or a "no awareness group" (n = 30, mean age 65 years) and only knew their shoe temperature was being measured. Differences were assessed with a linear mixed model. RESULTS: Mean (standard deviation; SD) wearing time in the intervention group was 7.32 h/day (SD 4.2), and 6.11 h/day (SD 4.1) in the control group (p = 0.017). A significant interaction effect was found between awareness and pathology group on wearing time (p = 0.036). The difference was especially large (7.0 (SD 4.7) vs 2.4 (SD 2.2) h/day) in the subgroup of people with diabetes. CONCLUSION: Awareness of being monitored increases wearing time and wearing of orthopaedic footwear

Validity and feasibility of a temperature sensor for measuring use and non-use of orthopaedic footwear

Objective: Adherence is a prerequisite for the effectiveness of orthopaedic footwear. The aim of this study is to assess the validity of a new temperature sensor for objective assessment of footwear use and non-use. Design: Observational study. Methods: The validity of a temperature sensor (Orthotimer, Balingen, Germany) to discriminate between time periods of use and non-use of footwear over a period of 48 h was assessed using 3 algorithms, in 10 healthy participants (mean age 32.8 years (standard deviation (SD) 14.1 years)). Footwear use measured with the sensor was compared with a reference standard, footwear use measured with a time-lapse sports camera secured to the shoe. Main outcome measure: Hours of footwear use. Results: Mean footwear use measured with the camera was 8.10 (SD 2.46) h per day. Mean footwear uses measured with the sensor and calculated with the 3 algorithms were 8.16 (SD 2.37), 8.86 (SD 2.48) and 4.91 (SD 3.17) h per day for the Groningen algorithm, algorithm-25, and algorithm-29, respectively. The correlation between footwear use assessed with the camera and with the sensor was: r(Groningen) = 0.995, r(alg25) = 0.919 and r(alg29) = 0.680). Conclusion: The temperature sensor is a valid instrument to measure footwear use and non-use when using the Groningen algorithm

nodeo

<p>NodEO is a simple, but scalable, evolutionary algorithm library written in JavaScript that works with the node interpreter. It includes basic selection, breeding, mutation and crossover operators, and a few fitness functions to test.</p