Effect of seat height on manual wheelchair foot propulsion, a repeated-measures crossover study: part 1 – wheeling forward on a smooth level surface
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose To test the hypotheses that, during manual wheelchair foot propulsion forward on smooth level surfaces, lowering the seat height increases speed, push frequency and push effectiveness, and decreases perceived difficulty.Materials and methods In a repeated-measures crossover study, 50 able-bodied participants used one foot to propel a manual wheelchair 10 m on a smooth level surface at 5 seat heights in random order, ranging from 5.08 cm below to about 5.08 cm above lower-leg length. We recorded Wheelchair Skills Test (WST) capacity scores and used the Wheelchair Propulsion Test (WPT) to calculate speed (m/s), push frequency (cycles/s) and push effectiveness (m/cycle). We also recorded the participants’ perceived difficulty (0–4) and video-recorded each trial.Results WST capacity scores were reduced at the higher seat heights. Using repeated-measures models (adjusted for age, sex and order), there were negative relationships between seat height and speed (p < 0.0001) and push effectiveness (p < 0.0001). Lowering the seat height by 5.08 cm below lower-leg length corresponded to improvements in speed of 0.20 m/s and in push effectiveness of 0.20 m/cycle. The trend for push frequency was also significant (p = 0.003) but the effect size was smaller. Perceived difficulty increased with seat height (p < 0.001). The video-recordings provided qualitative kinematic data regarding the seated “gait cycles”.Conclusions During manual wheelchair foot propulsion forward on smooth level surfaces, lowering the seat height increases speed and push effectiveness, and decreases perceived difficulty.Clinical Trial Registration Number NCT03330912.Implications for RehabilitationGenerally, wheelchairs used for forward foot propulsion should have a seat height that is 2.54-5.08 cm less than the sitting lower-leg length.Clinicians should, however, take into consideration other functions that may be adversely affected by lowering the seat height.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".