Redesign and ergonomic assessment of a chest-support baby walker
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Parents often use baby walkers (BWs) as assistive devices to improve their infants' independent movement and motor skill acquisition. However, the literature suggests that conventional baby walkers (CBW) may cause delays in an infant's ability to walk independently and musculoskeletal burden on parents. OBJECTIVE: In the current study, a baby walker (RBW) with chest support was redesigned and ergonomically assessed during an infant-walking task. METHODS: The anthropometric dimensions of 90 infants aged 7-11 months were measured in the city of Urmia, northwestern Iran. Following redesigning based on the results from expert panel meetings and prototyping of the RBW, 18 mothers (age: 28.33±4.27 and height: 163.75±5.32 and weight: 59.45±5.99) with their infants (9 boys and 9 girls) performed a simulated infant walking task in two experimental sessions using the CBW and RBW over a repeated measurements design. The infants' feet track patterns, including the number of steps and step distances were assessed via the image analysis of the footprints. The mothers' body posture and lower back spinal load were evaluated using Rapid Upper Limb Assessment (RULA) technique and 3D Static Strength Prediction Program (3DSSPP), respectively. RESULTS: Wilcoxon signed-rank tests showed infants walked more steps with the RBW (p = 0.002). Similarly, the distance between the infants' left heel strike (p = 0.008) and their right and left toe-off (p = 0.03 and 0.02 respectively) was also significantly lower in the RBW use. Additionally, the body posture of mothers was improved (RULA final score from 7 for CBW to 5 for RBW). Moreover, lower back compression and shear forces were reduced significantly (p = 0.002) by the RBW use. CONCLUSION: According to the feet track pattern, infants took more balanced steps when the RBW was used. In addition, mothers were subjected to less pressure on the lumbar region when they placed and lifted their infant from the RBW. However, further work is necessary to investigate potential long-term effects of the RBWs use.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".