Handrim Wheelchair Propulsion Research Articles

Comparison of rolling resistance, propulsion technique and physiological demands between a rigid, folding and hybrid manual wheelchair frame

Background When selecting a manual wheelchair frame, the choice between rigid and folding frames carries significant implications. Traditional folding frames are expected to have more rolling resistance and power dissipation caused by frame deformation, while they are more convenient for transportation, such as in a car. A new hybrid frame, designed to be more rigid, aims to minimize power dissipation while still retaining foldability. Aim This study aimed to assess rolling resistance, power output, propulsion technique and physiological demands of handrim wheelchair propulsion across three different frames: a rigid frame, a hybrid frame and a conventional folding frame. Materials and Methods Forty-eight able-bodied participants performed coast-down tests using inertial measurement units to determine rolling resistance. Subsequently, four-minute submaximal exercise block under steady-state conditions at 1.11 m/s were performed on a wheelchair ergometer (n = 24) or treadmill (n = 24) to determine power output, propulsion technique and physiological demands. Results Repeated measures ANOVA revealed that the hybrid frame exhibited the lowest rolling resistance (7.0 ± 1.5N, p ≤ 0.001) and required less power output (8.3 ± 1.0W, p ≤ 0.001) at a given speed, compared to both the folding (9.3 ± 2.2N, 10.8 ± 1.4W) and rigid frame (8.0 ± 1.9N, 9.4 ± 1.6W). Subsequently, this resulted in significantly lower applied forces and push frequency for the hybrid frame. The folding frame had the highest energy expenditure (hybrid: 223 ± 44 W, rigid: 234 ± 51 W, folding: 240 ± 46 W, p ≤ 0.001). Conclusion The hybrid frame demonstrated to be a biomechanically and physiologically beneficial solution compared to the folding frame, exhibiting lower rolling resistance, reduced power output, and consequently minimizing force application and push frequency, all while retaining its folding mechanism.

Towards an accurate rolling resistance: Estimating intra-cycle load distribution between front and rear wheels during wheelchair propulsion from inertial sensors

ABSTRACT Accurate assessment of rolling resistance is important for wheelchair propulsion analyses. However, the commonly used drag and deceleration tests are reported to underestimate rolling resistance up to 6% due to the (neglected) influence of trunk motion. The first aim of this study was to investigate the accuracy of using trunk and wheelchair kinematics to predict the intra-cyclical load distribution, more particularly front wheel loading, during hand-rim wheelchair propulsion. Secondly, the study compared the accuracy of rolling resistance determined from the predicted load distribution with the accuracy of drag test-based rolling resistance. Twenty-five able-bodied participants performed hand-rim wheelchair propulsion on a large motor-driven treadmill. During the treadmill sessions, front wheel load was assessed with load pins to determine the load distribution between the front and rear wheels. Accordingly, a machine learning model was trained to predict front wheel load from kinematic data. Based on two inertial sensors (attached to the trunk and wheelchair) and the machine learning model, front wheel load was predicted with a mean absolute error (MAE) of 3.8% (or 1.8 kg). Rolling resistance determined from the predicted load distribution (MAE: 0.9%, mean error (ME): 0.1%) was more accurate than drag test-based rolling resistance (MAE: 2.5%, ME: −1.3%).

Trunk motion influences mechanical power estimates during wheelchair propulsion

In wheelchair sports, there is an increasing need to monitor mechanical power in the field. When rolling resistance is known, inertial measurement units (IMUs) can be used to determine mechanical power. However, upper body (i.e., trunk) motion affects the mass distribution between the small front and large rear wheels, thus affecting rolling resistance. Therefore, drag tests – which are commonly used to estimate rolling resistance – may not be valid. The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of trunk motion on mechanical power estimates in hand-rim wheelchair propulsion by comparing instantaneous resistance-based power loss with drag test-based power loss. Experiments were performed with no, moderate and full trunk motion during wheelchair propulsion. During these experiments, power loss was determined based on 1) the instantaneous rolling resistance and 2) based on the rolling resistance determined from drag tests (thus neglecting the effects of trunk motion). Results showed that power loss values of the two methods were similar when no trunk motion was present (mean difference [MD] of 0.6 ± 1.6 %). However, drag test-based power loss was underestimated up to −3.3 ± 2.3 % MD when the extent of trunk motion increased (r = 0.85). To conclude, during wheelchair propulsion with active trunk motion, neglecting the effects of trunk motion leads to an underestimated mechanical power of 1 to 6 % when it is estimated with drag test values. Depending on the required accuracy and the amount of trunk motion in the target group, the influence of trunk motion on power estimates should be corrected for.

Handrim Wheelchair Propulsion Technique in Individuals With Spinal Cord Injury With and Without Shoulder Pain: A Cross-sectional Comparison.

The aim of this study was to compare handrim wheelchair propulsion technique between individuals with spinal cord injury with and without shoulder pain. A cross-sectional study including 38 experienced handrim wheelchair users with spinal cord injury was conducted. Participants were divided into the "shoulder pain" ( n = 15) and "no-shoulder pain" ( n = 23) groups using the Local Musculoskeletal Discomfort scale. Kinetic and spatiotemporal aspects of handrim wheelchair propulsion during submaximal exercise on a motor-driven treadmill were analyzed. Data were collected using a measurement wheel instrumented with three-dimensional force sensors. After correction for confounders (time since injury and body height), linear regression analyses showed that the pain group had a 0.30-sec (95% confidence interval, -0.5 to -0.1) shorter cycle time, 0.22-sec (95% confidence interval, -0.4 to -0.1) shorter recovery time, 15.6 degrees (95% confidence interval, -27.4 to -3.8) smaller contact angle, and 8% (95% confidence interval, -15 to 0) lower variability in work per push compared with the no-pain group. Other parameters did not differ between groups. This study indicates that individuals with spinal cord injury who experience shoulder pain propel their handrim wheelchair kinematically differently from individuals with spinal cord injury without shoulder pain. This difference in propulsion technique might be a pain-avoiding mechanism aimed at decreasing shoulder range of motion.

Power output and energy cost: crucial measures to understand motor skill learning in handrim wheelchair propulsion

BACKGROUND: This current opinion is a call for standardization of measurements of manual wheeling ability among larger and diverse populations to support our understanding of motor control and learning. VIEW OF THE PAST: Handrim wheelchair propulsion remains the most common mode of wheeled ambulation and has stood the test of time as a practical upper-body alternative to walking. CURRENT STATE: Two theoretical models appeared useful in understanding the demands on the wheelchair-user combination and the role of motor skill acquisition: Power Balance Model and Constraint-based Approach. FUTURE PERSPECTIVE: Power output and energy cost measures are crucial mediators in the development of a motor control theory of cyclic motions in rehabilitation, adapted sports and beyond.

A novel push\u2013pull central-lever mechanism reduces peak forces and energy-cost compared to hand-rim wheelchair propulsion during a controlled lab-based experiment

BackgroundHand-rim wheelchair propulsion is straining and mechanically inefficient, often leading to upper limb complaints. Previous push–pull lever propulsion mechanisms have shown to perform better or equal in efficiency and physiological strain. Propulsion biomechanics have not been evaluated thus far. A novel push–pull central-lever propulsion mechanism is compared to conventional hand-rim wheelchair propulsion, using both physiological and biomechanical outcomes under low-intensity steady-state conditions on a motor driven treadmill.MethodsIn this 5 day (distributed over a maximum of 21 days) between-group experiment, 30 able-bodied novices performed 60 min (5 × 3 × 4 min) of practice in either the push–pull central lever wheelchair (n = 15) or the hand-rim wheelchair (n = 15). At the first and final sessions cardiopulmonary strain, propulsion kinematics and force production were determined in both instrumented propulsion mechanisms. Repeated measures ANOVA evaluated between (propulsion mechanism type), within (over practice) and interaction effects.ResultsOver practice, both groups significantly improved on all outcome measures. After practice the peak forces during the push and pull phase of lever propulsion were considerably lower compared to those in the handrim push phase (42 ± 10 & 46 ± 10 vs 63 ± 21N). Concomitantly, energy expenditure was found to be lower as well (263 ± 45 vs 298 ± 59W), on the other hand gross mechanical efficiency (6.4 ± 1.5 vs 5.9 ± 1.3%), heart-rate (97 ± 10 vs 98 ± 10 bpm) and perceived exertion (9 ± 2 vs 10 ± 1) were not significantly different between modes.ConclusionThe current study shows the potential benefits of the newly designed push–pull central-lever propulsion mechanism over regular hand rim wheelchair propulsion. The much lower forces and energy expenditure might help to reduce the strain on the upper extremities and thus prevent the development of overuse injury. This proof of concept in a controlled laboratory experiment warrants continued experimental research in wheelchair-users during daily life.

Learning of Wheelchair Racing Propulsion Skills Over Three Weeks of Wheeling Practice on an Instrumented Ergometer in Able-Bodied Novices.

The acquisition of daily handrim wheelchair propulsion skill as a multi-layered phenomenon has been studied in the past. Wheelchair racing, however, is considerably different from daily handrim wheelchair propulsion in terms of propulsion technique, as well as the underlying equipment and interface. Understanding wheelchair racing skill acquisition is important from a general motor learning and skill acquisition perspective, but also from a performance and injury prevention perspective. The aim of the current lab-based study was 2-fold: to investigate the evolution of racing wheelchair propulsion skill among a sample of novices and to compare them with an experienced wheelchair racer under similar conditions. A convenience sample of 15 able-bodied novices (8 male, 7 female) completed a standardized three-week submaximal uninstructed practice protocol (3 weeks, 3 sessions per week, 3x4 min per session) in a racing wheelchair on an ergometer. Required wheeling velocity was set at 2.78 m/s (10 km/h) and a rolling friction coefficient of 0.011 (resulting in a mean target load of 21W) was used. For comparison, an experienced T54 Paralympic athlete completed one block of the same protocol. Kinetics, kinematics, and physiological data were captured. A mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the effect of practice for the novices, while controlling for speed. All participants finished the protocol successfully. However, not all participants were able to achieve the target speed during the first few sessions. Statistically significant improvements over time were found for all outcome measures (i.e., lower metabolic strain, longer push and cycle times) with the exception of mean power and torque per push. The athlete used a significantly greater contact angle and showed “better” outcomes on most metabolic and kinetic variables. While the athlete used a semi-circular propulsion technique, most participants used a double looping over technique. Three weeks of uninstructed wheelchair racing practice significantly improved efficiency and skill among a group of novices, in line with previous studies on daily handrim wheelchair propulsion. The comparison with an experienced athlete expectedly showed that there is still a large performance (and knowledge) gap to be conquered.

Physiological and biomechanical comparison of overground, treadmill, and ergometer handrim wheelchair propulsion in able-bodied subjects under standardized conditions

BackgroundHandrim wheelchair propulsion is often assessed in the laboratory on treadmills (TM) or ergometers (WE), under the assumption that they relate to regular overground (OG) propulsion. However, little is known about the agreement of data obtained from TM, WE, and OG propulsion under standardized conditions. The current study aimed to standardize velocity and power output among these three modalities to consequently compare obtained physiological and biomechanical outcome parameters.MethodsSeventeen able-bodied participants performed two submaximal practice sessions before taking part in a measurement session consisting of 3 × 4 min of submaximal wheelchair propulsion in each of the different modalities. Power output and speed for TM and WE propulsion were matched with OG propulsion, making them (mechanically) as equal as possible. Physiological data and propulsion kinetics were recorded with a spirometer and a 3D measurement wheel, respectively.ResultsAgreement among conditions was moderate to good for most outcome variables. However, heart rate was significantly higher in OG propulsion than in the TM condition. Push time and contact angle were smaller and fraction of effective force was higher on the WE when compared to OG/TM propulsion. Participants used a larger cycle time and more negative work per cycle in the OG condition. A continuous analysis using statistical parametric mapping showed a lower torque profile in the start of the push phase for TM propulsion versus OG/WE propulsion. Total force was higher during the start of the push phase for the OG conditions when compared to TM/WE propulsion.ConclusionsPhysiological and biomechanical outcomes in general are similar, but possible differences between modalities exist, even after controlling for power output using conventional techniques. Further efforts towards increasing the ecological validity of lab-based equipment is advised and the possible impact of these differences -if at all- in (clinical) practice should be evaluated.

Technical Note: A Novel Servo-Driven Dual-Roller Handrim Wheelchair Ergometer

The measurement of handrim wheelchair propulsion characteristics and performance in the field is complicated due to the non-stationary nature of wheelchair driving. In contrast, the laboratory provides a constrained and standardisable environment to conduct measurements and experiments. Apart from wheelchair treadmills, dynamometers or ergometers for handrim wheelchairs are often custom-made, one-of-a-kind, expensive, and sparsely documented in the research literature. To facilitate standardised and comparable lab-based measurements in research, as well as in clinical settings and adapted sports, a new wheelchair ergometer was developed. The ergometer with instrumented dual rollers allows for the performance analysis of individuals in their personal handrim wheelchair and facilitates capacity assessment, training and skill acquisition in rehabilitation or adapted sports. The ergometer contains two servomotors, one for each rear wheel roller, that allow for the simulation of translational inertia and resistive forces as encountered during wheelchair propulsion based on force input and a simple mechanical model of wheelchair propulsion. A load cell configuration for left and right roller enables the measurement of effective user-generated torque and force on the handrim and the concomitant timing patterns. Preliminary results are discussed.

Determining and Controlling External Power Output During Regular Handrim Wheelchair Propulsion

Determining and Controlling External Power Output During Regular Handrim Wheelchair Propulsion

Determining and Controlling External Power Output During Regular Handrim Wheelchair Propulsion.

The use of a manual wheelchair is critical to 1% of the world's population. Human powered wheeled mobility research has considerably matured, which has led to improved research techniques becoming available over the last decades. To increase the understanding of wheeled mobility performance, monitoring, training, skill acquisition, and optimization of the wheelchair-user interface in rehabilitation, daily life, and sports, further standardization of measurement set-ups and analyses is required. A crucial stepping-stone is the accurate measurement and standardization of external power output (measured in Watts), which is pivotal for the interpretation and comparison of experiments aiming to improve rehabilitation practice, activities of daily living, and adaptive sports. The different methodologies and advantages of accurate power output determination during overground, treadmill, and ergometer-based testing are presented and discussed in detail. Overground propulsion provides the most externally valid mode for testing, but standardization can be troublesome. Treadmill propulsion is mechanically similar to overground propulsion, but turning and accelerating is not possible. An ergometer is the most constrained and standardization is relatively easy. The goal is to stimulate good practice and standardization to facilitate the further development of theory and its application among research facilities and applied clinical and sports sciences around the world.

Measuring Handrim Wheelchair Propulsion in the Lab: A Critical Analysis of Stationary Ergometers.

There are many ways to simulate handrim wheelchair propulsion in the laboratory. Ideally, these would be able to, at least mechanically, simulate field conditions. This narrative review provides an overview of the lab-based equipment used in published research and critically assesses their ability to simulate and measure wheelchair propulsion performance. A close connection to the field can only be achieved if the instrument can adequately simulate frictional losses and inertia of real-life handrim wheelchair propulsion, while maintaining the ergonomic properties of the wheelchair-user interface. Lab-based testing is either performed on a treadmill or a wheelchair ergometer (WCE). For this study WCEs were divided into three categories: roller, flywheel, and integrated ergometers. In general, treadmills are mechanically realistic, but cannot simulate air drag and acceleration tasks cannot be performed; roller ergometers allow the use of the personal wheelchair, but calibration can be troublesome; flywheel ergometers can be built with commercially-available parts, but inertia is fixed and the personal wheelchair cannot be used; integrated ergometers do not employ the personal wheelchair, but are suited for the implementation of different simulation models and detailed measurements. Lab-based equipment is heterogeneous and there appears to be little consensus on how to simulate field conditions.

Motor learning outcomes of handrim wheelchair propulsion during active spinal cord injury rehabilitation in comparison with experienced wheelchair users

Purpose To investigate changes in wheelchair propulsion technique and mechanical efficiency across first five weeks of active inpatient spinal cord injury rehabilitation and to compare the outcomes at discharge with experienced wheelchair users with spinal cord injury. Methods Eight individuals with recent spinal cord injury performed six weekly submaximal exercise tests. The first and last measurement additionally contained a wheelchair circuit and peak graded exercise test. Fifteen experienced individuals performed all above-mentioned tests on one occasion. Results Mechanical efficiency and propulsion technique did not change during the five weeks of inpatient rehabilitation. Peak power output during peak graded test and performance time on the wheelchair circuit improved between the first and the last week. No difference in propulsion technique, peak power output, and performance time was found between the persons with a recent injury and the experienced group. Mechanical efficiency was higher after the correction for the difference in relative power output in the experienced group. Conclusion The group with a recent injury did not improve mechanical efficiency and propulsion technique over the period of active rehabilitation, despite significant improvements on the wheelchair circuit and in work capacity. The only significant difference between the groups was found in mechanical efficiency. Implications for rehabilitation The lack of time-dependent changes in mechanical efficiency and propulsion technique in the group with a recent spinal cord injury, combined with the lack of differences in technique, work capacity and on the wheelchair circuit between the groups, suggest that important adaptations of motor learning may happen even earlier in rehabilitation and emphasize that the group in active rehabilitation was relatively skilled. Standardized observational analyses of handrim wheelchair propulsion abilities during early spinal cord injury rehabilitation provide detailed understanding of wheelchair technique, skill as well as wheelchair propulsion capacity. Measurement of external power output is critical to interpretation of gross efficiency, propulsion technique, and capacity. Wheelchair quality and body weight – next to wheelchair fitness and skill – require careful consideration both in early rehabilitation as well as in the chronic phase of spinal cord injury.

A Systematic Methodology to Analyze the Impact of Hand-Rim Wheelchair Propulsion on the Upper Limb.

Manual wheelchair propulsion results in physical demand of the upper limb extremities that, because of its repetitive nature, can lead to chronic pathologies on spinal cord injury patients. The aim of this study was to design and test a methodology to compare kinematic and kinetic variables of the upper limb joints when propelling different wheelchairs. Moreover, this methodology was used to analyze the differences that may exist between paraplegic and tetraplegic patients when propelling two different wheelchairs. Five adults with paraplegia and five adults with tetraplegia performed several propulsion tests. Participants propelled two different wheelchairs for three minutes at 0.833 m/s (3 km/h) with one minute break between the tests. Kinematic and kinetic variables of the upper limb as well as variables with respect to the propulsion style were recorded. Important differences in the kinetic and kinematic variables of the joints of the upper limb were found when comparing paraplegic and tetraplegic patients. Nevertheless, this difference depends on the wheelchair used. As expected, in all tests, the shoulder shows to be the most impacted joint.

Physiological parameters depending on two different types of manual wheelchair propulsion

ABSTRACT Objective. The purpose of this study was to compare aerobic parameters in the multistage field test (MFT) in hand rim wheelchair propulsion and lever wheelchair propulsion. Methods. Twenty-one men performed MFT using two different types of propulsion, i.e., lever and hand rim wheelchair propulsion. The covered distance and physiological variables (oxygen uptake (VO2), minute ventilation (VE), carbon dioxide output (VCO2), respiratory coefficient (RQ), and heart rate (HR)) were observed. Physiological variables were measured with Cosmed K5 system. Kolmogorov–Smirnov test, t-test, Wilcoxon test and effect sizes (ESs) were used to assess differences. Statistical significance was set at p < .05. Results. A significantly longer distance was observed in lever wheelchair propulsion than in hand rim wheelchair propulsion (1,194 and 649 m, respectively). VO2max and RQ were higher in hand rim wheelchair propulsion. All physiological variables for the last (fifth) level of the test in hand rim propulsion were significantly higher than in lever wheelchair propulsion. ES was large for each observed difference. Conclusion. The lever wheelchair propulsion movement is less demanding than hand rim wheelchair propulsion and longer distances can be achieved by the user. There is a need to check lever wheelchair propulsion in different types of field tests.

Practice-based skill acquisition of pushrim-activated power-assisted wheelchair propulsion versus regular handrim propulsion in novices

BackgroundRegular handrim wheelchair (RHW) propulsion is straining for the upper extremities and wheelchair users often experience overuse problems. A recent advancement in wheelchair technology that could assist users is the pushrim-activated power-assisted wheelchair (PAPAW). PAPAWs are challenging to control, yet it is unclear how people learn to use a PAPAW. The purpose of this study is to examine early skill acquisition through practice in PAPAWs and compare it with RHWs.MethodsTwenty-four able-bodied novices were randomly allocated to either the RHW group or the PAPAW group. The experiment consisted of five sessions with three blocks of 4 min steady-state practice at 1.11 m/s and 0.21 W/kg. Finally, a transfer to the other mode was made. Data were collected with a drag-test, breath-by-breath spirometry, and a motion capture system. The last minute of each four-minute block was used for analysis. A mixed analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for group, time, and interaction effects.ResultsBoth groups improved their (assisted) mechanical efficiency, reduced their stroke rate, right-left and forward-backward deviation on the treadmill, and had a lower rate of perceived exertion (RPE) over time. (Assisted) mechanical efficiency was higher for the PAPAW group than for the RHW group and RPE was lower. However, left-right and forward-backward deviation was also found to be higher in the PAPAW group.ConclusionsAt the group level the energetic cost of RHW and PAPAW propulsion can be lowered through low-intensity practice in novice users. The PAPAW is more ‘efficient’ than the RHW given the reduced energy requirement of the user from the motor assist, but more difficult to control. Future studies on PAPAWs should focus on the control needs of the user and their interaction with the power-assist technology.

Scapular kinematics during manual wheelchair propulsion in able-bodied participants

BackgroundAltered scapular kinematics have been associated with shoulder pain and functional limitations. To understand kinematics in persons with spinal cord injury during manual handrim wheelchair propulsion, a description of normal scapular behaviour in able-bodied persons during this specific task is a prerequisite for accurate interpretation. The primary aim of this study is to describe scapular kinematics in able-bodied persons during manual wheelchair propulsion. MethodsSixteen able-bodied, novice wheelchair users without shoulder complaints participated in the study. Kinematic and kinetic data were collected during a standardized pose in the anatomic posture, frontal-plane arm elevation and low-intensity steady-state handrim wheelchair propulsion and upper-body Euler angles were calculated. FindingsScapulothoracic joint orientations in a static position were 36.7° (SD 5.4°), 6.4° (SD 9.1°) and 9.1° (SD 5.7°) for respectively protraction, lateral rotation and anterior tilt. At 80° of arm elevation in the frontal plane, the respective values of 33.4° (SD 8.0°), 23.9° (SD 5.4°) and 4.1° (SD 11.3°) were found. During the push phase of manual wheelchair propulsion, the mean scapular rotations were respectively 32.7° (SD 7.1°), 7.1° (SD 9.2°) and 9.8° (SD 8.3°). InterpretationThe orientation of the scapula in a static pose, during arm elevation and in manual wheelchair propulsion in able-bodied participants showed similar patterns to a previous study in persons with para- and tetraplegia. These values provide a reference for the investigation of the scapular movement pattern in wheelchair-dependent persons and its relation to shoulder complex abnormalities.

Evaluation and validation of musculoskeletal force feasible set indices: Application to manual wheelchair propulsion

The aim of this work was to assess handrim wheelchair propulsion effectiveness, related to the applied forces on the handrim, through the force feasible set. For a given posture of the upper-limb, it represents the set of isometric forces that can be applied on the handrim in any direction. The force feasible set was predicted from a musculoskeletal model of the upper-limb and trunk (10 degrees of freedom and 56 muscles). The aim of the first part of the study was to compare the force feasible set prediction and the force currently applied on the handrim. The second part proposes the creation of a new index called “Musculoskeletal Postural Performance Index” (MPPI) derived from the force feasible set and its comparison with the Mechanical Efficiency Force (MEF). These comparisons were conducted at 60, 80, 100, 120 and 140% of the Freely Chosen Frequency at submaximal and maximal conditions on 5 different phases of the push phase. The values of the MPPI were significantly correlated with those of the MEF. During the course of the push phase, the orientation of the force feasible set main axis approached that of the measured force and the force effectiveness evaluated through the MPPI increased.

Mechanisms of trunk stabilization during gait termination in young and older women: A neuromechanical analysis

Altered scapular kinematics have been associated with shoulder pain and functional limitations. To understand kinematics in persons with spinal cord injury during manual handrim wheelchair propulsion, a description of normal scapular behaviour in able-bodied persons during this specific task is a prerequisite for accurate interpretation. The primary aim of this study is to describe scapular kinematics in able-bodied persons during manual wheelchair propulsion.Sixteen able-bodied, novice wheelchair users without shoulder complaints participated in the study. Kinematic and kinetic data were collected during a standardized pose in the anatomic posture, frontal-plane arm elevation and low-intensity steady-state handrim wheelchair propulsion and upper-body Euler angles were calculated.Scapulothoracic joint orientations in a static position were 36.7° (SD 5.4°), 6.4° (SD 9.1°) and 9.1° (SD 5.7°) for respectively protraction, lateral rotation and anterior tilt. At 80° of arm elevation in the frontal plane, the respective values of 33.4° (SD 8.0°), 23.9° (SD 5.4°) and 4.1° (SD 11.3°) were found. During the push phase of manual wheelchair propulsion, the mean scapular rotations were respectively 32.7° (SD 7.1°), 7.1° (SD 9.2°) and 9.8° (SD 8.3°).The orientation of the scapula in a static pose, during arm elevation and in manual wheelchair propulsion in able-bodied participants showed similar patterns to a previous study in persons with para- and tetraplegia. These values provide a reference for the investigation of the scapular movement pattern in wheelchair-dependent persons and its relation to shoulder complex abnormalities.

Effects of variable practice on the motor learning outcomes in manual wheelchair propulsion.

BackgroundHandrim wheelchair propulsion is a cyclic skill that needs to be learned during rehabilitation. It has been suggested that more variability in propulsion technique benefits the motor learning process of wheelchair propulsion.The purpose of this study was to determine the influence of variable practice on the motor learning outcomes of wheelchair propulsion in able-bodied participants. Variable practice was introduced in the form of wheelchair basketball practice and wheelchair-skill practice. Motor learning was operationalized as improvements in mechanical efficiency and propulsion technique.MethodsEleven Participants in the variable practice group and 12 participants in the control group performed an identical pre-test and a post-test. Pre- and post-test were performed in a wheelchair on a motor-driven treadmill (1.11 m/s) at a relative power output of 0.23 W/kg. Energy consumption and the propulsion technique variables with their respective coefficient of variation were calculated. Between the pre- and the post-test the variable practice group received 7 practice sessions. During the practice sessions participants performed one-hour of variable practice, consisting of five wheelchair-skill tasks and a 30 min wheelchair basketball game. The control group did not receive any practice between the pre- and the post-test.ResultsComparison of the pre- and the post-test showed that the variable practice group significantly improved the mechanical efficiency (4.5 ± 0.6% → 5.7 ± 0.7%) in contrast to the control group (4.5 ± 0.6% → 4.4 ± 0.5%) (group x time interaction effect p < 0.001).With regard to propulsion technique, both groups significantly reduced the push frequency and increased the contact angle of the hand with the handrim (within group, time effect). No significant group × time interaction effects were found for propulsion technique. With regard to propulsion variability, the variable practice group increased variability when compared to the control group (interaction effect p < 0.001).ConclusionsCompared to a control, variable practice, resulted in an increase in mechanical efficiency and increased variability. Interestingly, the large relative improvement in mechanical efficiency was concomitant with only moderate improvements in the propulsion technique, which were similar in the control group, suggesting that other factors besides propulsion technique contributed to the lower energy expenditure.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12984-016-0209-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.