Substantiating Appropriate Motion Capture Techniques for the Assessment of Nordic Walking Gait and Posture in Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nordic walking (NW) has become a safe and simple form of exercise in recent years, and in studying this gait pattern, various data collection techniques have been employed, each with positives and negatives. The aim was to determine the effect of NW on older adult gait and posture and to determine optimal use of different data collection systems in both short and long duration analysis. Gait and posture during NW and normal walking were assessed in 17 healthy older adults (age: 69 ± 7.3). Participants performed two trials of 6 Minute Walk Tests (6MWT) (1 with poles (WP) and 1 without poles (NP)) and 6 trials of a 5m walk (3 WP and 3 NP). Motion was recorded using two systems, a 6-sensor accelerometry system and an 8-camera 3-dimensional motion capture system, in order to quantify spatial-temporal, kinematic, and kinetic parameters. With both systems, participants demonstrated increased stride length and double support and decreased gait speed and cadence WP compared to NP (p <0.05). Also, with motion capture, larger single support time was found WP (p <0.05). With 3-D capture, smaller hip power generation and moments of force were found at heel contact and pre-swing as well as smaller knee power absorption at heel contact, pre-swing, and terminal swing WP compared to NP, when assessed over one cycle (p <0.05). Also, WP yielded smaller moments of force at heel contact and terminal swing along with larger moments at mid-stance of a gait cycle (p <0.05). No changes were found for posture. NW seems appropriate for promoting a normal gait pattern in older adults. Three-dimensional motion capture should primarily be used during short duration gait analysis (i.e. single gait cycle), while accelerometry systems should be primarily employed in instances requiring longer duration analysis such as during the 6MWT.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".