Evidence to inform seat height and seat angle configuration for bilateral foot propulsion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: For individuals who propel their manual wheelchair (MWC) with their feet, appropriate assessment and configuration of their mobility device is critical to optimising use. Standard MWC designs favour upper extremity propulsion and pose a risk for functional positioning and injury risk for foot propellers. Limited existing evidence suggests lowering seat height or forward seat inclination can potentially improve propulsion biomechanics but lacks specificity. Obtaining more precise outcomes from varying MWC seat configurations would provide additional evidence to inform clinical decision-making. PURPOSE: This study investigates the impact of modifying seat height and seat angle on propulsion efficiency and comfort with bilateral foot propulsion in a MWC. METHODS: = 30) completed trials of five seat heights and four seat angles in random order on a standardised course; outcomes included completion time, push frequency, push effectiveness, perceived difficulty, and lower extremity range of motion. RESULTS: Overall results demonstrated seat heights 1-2" (2.5-5.1 cm) below lower leg length provided significant improvement, but limited gains beyond this point. Similarly, small seat inclinations of 3-6° produced significant benefits but diminishing benefits at 9°. Sensitivity analysis using lower leg length revealed benefits of seat inclination and height reduction of 1-2" (2.5-5.1 cm) among participants with shorter legs, while those with longer legs benefited from height reduction of 2-3" (5.1-7.6 cm). CONCUSION: These results underscore the importance of individualised tailoring of MWC configuration for foot propulsion to enhance ease and efficiency of mobility. The findings provide additional evidence to guide rehabilitation therapists in clinical practice.
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 | 0.029 | 0.137 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.002 |
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".