@article{ref1,
title="The contribution of counter-rotation movements during fall recovery: A validation study",
journal="Journal of biomechanics",
year="2018",
author="Rapp van Roden, Elizabeth A. and Petersen, Drew A. and Pigman, Jamie and Conner, Benjamin C. and Tyler Richardson, R. and Crenshaw, Jeremy R.",
volume="78",
number="",
pages="102-108",
abstract="Three mechanisms of maintaining standing stability include M<sub>1</sub> - moving the COP within the base of support, M<sub>2</sub> - segment counter-rotation, and M<sub>3</sub> - applying an external force. To date, the contributions of these mechanisms have not been quantified for the response to an external postural disturbance. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the construct validity of measures that quantify the M<sub>2</sub> contribution to anteroposterior fall recovery. We evaluated the whole-body rotation contribution, as well as a measure specific to arm motion (M<sub>ARMS</sub>). With segment counter-rotation as the main focus of this study, we examined standing feet-in-place responses to treadmill-induced falls. The treatment validity of our measures was assessed by comparing unconstrained responses to those with constrained arm motion. The convergent validity of our measures was assessed by correlating peak shoulder flexion and extension velocities with counter-rotation contributions. Eleven unimpaired participants responded to anteroposterior belt accelerations from a treadmill, and the M<sub>2</sub> and M<sub>ARMS</sub> contributions were quantified from three-dimensional segment motion. The treatment validity of these measures was partially supported. Constraining the arms reduced M<sub>2</sub> for anterior, but not posterior falls. Conversely, M<sub>ARMS</sub> was reduced for posterior, but not anterior falls. Convergent validity was supported for M<sub>ARMS</sub> (r = 0.64-0.78), but not M<sub>2</sub> (r = -0.40 to -0.15). These results support the use of M<sub>ARMS</sub> over M<sub>2</sub> when interested in the role of arm motion. Given that arm constraints did not change the contribution of M<sub>ARMS</sub> during a forward fall, unimpaired participants may not necessarily rely on arm motion as part of their recovery strategy in this context.<br><br>Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Ltd.<p /> <p>Language: en</p>",
language="en",
issn="0021-9290",
doi="10.1016/j.jbiomech.2018.07.025",
url="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2018.07.025"
}