Background
Objectives
Methods
Participant selection
Study design
SEBT procedure
Data collection
Data analysis
Key variables used to characterize motor control
Statistical analyses
Results
Quality of motor control and comparison of global body strategies between groups
Contribution of the lower limbs and trunk to global body strategy
Combination of global body strategy variables that best predict the SEBT performance
Group | Reaching direction | Lower limb | Global strategy variables (global CoM in vertical plane) | Model adjusted R2
|
p value | β | Partial correlationa
|
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Healthy group |
AM
| Dominant |
Peak-to-peak velocity (cm/s)
b
| 0.68 | 0.012 | 0.71 | - |
Non dominant |
Displacement (cm)
c
| 0.46 | 0.044 | 0.60 | - | ||
M
| Dominant |
Displacement (cm)
| 0.81 | 0.004 | 0.80 | - | |
Non dominant | 0.63 | 0.039 | 0.54 | - | |||
PM
| Dominant |
Displacement (cm)
| 0.77 | 0.003 | 0.71 | 0.86 | |
Peak-to-peak velocity (cm/s)
| 0.014 | 0.52 | 0.78 | ||||
Non dominant |
Displacement (cm)
| 0.81 | 0.002 | 0.94 | - | ||
LAS group |
AM
| Uninjured |
Peak-to-peak velocity (cm/s)
| 0.68 | 0.019 | 0.66 | - |
Injured |
Displacement (cm)
| 0.85 | 0.049 | 0.45 | 0.67 | ||
Peak-to-peak velocity (cm/s)
| 0.023 | 0.55 | 0.74 | ||||
M
| Uninjured |
Displacement (cm)
| 0.78 | 0.022 | 0.59 | - | |
Injured | 0.45 | 0.023 | 0.72 | - | |||
PM
| Uninjured |
Displacement (cm)
| 0.74 | 0.007 | 0.71 | - | |
Injured | 0.54 | 0.009 | 0.81 | - |