Effect of sensor location for modifying center of pressure during gait using haptic feedback in people with chronic ankle instability

Abstract

BackgroundGait retraining using haptic biofeedback medially shifts the center of pressure (COP) while walking in orthopedic populations. However, the ideal sensor location needed to effectively shift COP medially has not been identified in people with chronic ankle instability (CAI). Research questionsCan a heel sensor location feasibly be employed in people with CAI without negatively altering kinematics? Does a heel sensor placement relative to the 5th metatarsal head (5MH) impact COP location while walking in people with CAI? MethodsIn this exploratory crossover study, 10 participants with CAI walked on a treadmill with vibration feedback for 10 minutes with a plantar pressure sensor under the heel and 5MH. Separate 2×2 repeated measures analyses of covariances (rmANCOVAs) were used to compare the averaged COP location and 3-D lower extremity kinematics from the first 10% of stance before and after training and between sensor locations. Baseline measures served as covariates to adjust for baseline differences. ResultsFeedback triggered by a heel sensor resulted in 40% of participants avoiding a heel strike. There were no significant main effects or interactions between time and sensor location on COP location when controlling for baseline COP (p>0.05). However, with the 5MH placement, participants displayed less ankle internal rotation(IR) (5MH/Heel: −4.12±0.00º/ −6.43±0.62º), less forefoot abduction (-4.29±0.00º/ −5.14±1.01º), more knee flexion (3.40±0.32º/ 0.14±0.57º), less knee external rotation (-10.95±0.00º/-11.24±1.48º), less hip extension (-0.20±0.00º/-1.42±1.05º), and less hip external rotation (3.12±0.00º/3.75±1.98º). SignificanceA 5MH location may be more feasible based on difficulties maintaining heel strike when the sensor was under the heel. While no sensor location was statistically better at changing the COP, the 5MH location decreased proximal transverse plane motions making participants’ gait more like controls. Individual response variations support comprehensive lower extremity assessments and the need to identify responder profiles using sensory feedback in people with CAI.