The largest database of trusted experimental protocols

Force platform

Manufactured by Amti
Sourced in United States

A force platform is a sensitive instrument that measures the forces exerted by an object or individual upon a surface. It is designed to accurately record the magnitude and direction of these forces, providing valuable data for various applications.

Automatically generated - may contain errors

19 protocols using force platform

1

Kinematic Analysis of Yoga Asanas

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
Following a self-selected, five-minute warm up, the participants were equipped with sixteen low-mass retroreflective markers on specific anatomical landmarks in accordance with the lower body Plug-In Gait model (Vicon, 2002). All kinematic data was collected using a ten-camera motion capture system (Vicon, Oxford Metrics, Oxford, UK) operating at 100Hz, and kinetic data was recorded using force platforms (AMTI, Watertown, MA, USA) operating at 1000 Hz.
The participants performed seven common asanas: crescent lunge, triangle, warrior 1, warrior 2(all double leg poses), eagle, half-moon and tree (all single-leg poses)(Figure 1) [8 (link)]. Each asana was performed in a manner which the participant would practice regularly and was not performed as deeply as possible. Each participant performed every pose three times from a neutral standing position and held the pose for fifteen seconds each time. All poses were performed on both the left and right leg, however previous studies found no between-leg differences in this sample [8 (link)], so the analysis was only performed on poses with the right leg forward, or while standing on the right leg.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
2

Gait Biomechanics Under Orthotic Conditions

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
The participants were equipped with 40 retroreflective markers allocated to specific anatomical landmarks according to the full body Plug-In Gait model [15 ]. All kinematic data was collected using a ten-camera motion capture system (Vicon, Oxford, UK) operating at 100 Hz, and kinetic data was recorded using force platforms (AMTI, Watertown, MA, USA) operating at 1000 Hz.
The participants were asked to walk across the capture space at their self-selected speed under three different conditions: (1) shod in their own athletic shoes [Shod], (2) equipped with an orthopaedic walking boot (Aircast, BetterBraces, Canada, 1.59 kg, heel elevation 35mm, Fig 1) on one leg and their own athletic shoe on the other [Boot], and (3) equipped with the boot on one leg and the same athletic shoe with a heel lift on the contralateral foot [Lift]. A custom-made corrective heel lift was designed out of felt to match the 35 mm elevation created by the walking boot. A static trial was recorded for each of the walking conditions [1 (link)], and the order of the conditions was randomized. The boot was allocated randomly to the right or left foot of each participant (R=9; L=8). Three gait trials with clean force-plate foot-strikes were collected for each participant per condition.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
3

Waist-Pull Perturbation Protocol for Balance

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
Participants received 36 randomly applied, motor-driven lateral waist-pull perturbations (Pidcoe and Rogers, 1998 (link))). Three trials were conducted at each of six pull intensities (total displacement: 5, 8.6, 12.1, 15.7, 19.3, 22.8 cm; constant velocity: 9, 18, 27, 36, 45, 54 cm/s, and maximum allowable acceleration: 180, 360, 540, 720, 900, 900 cm/s2) in the left and right directions. Figure 2 shows an example perturbation profile. The order of trial presentation was randomized to minimize anticipatory and sequence learning effects. A safety harness was worn to prevent contact with the ground due to loss of balance. Participants stood on two separate force platforms (AMTI, Watertown, MA) in a self-selected, comfortable standing position and held a light cylindrical baton with both hands in front of the body. The baton was used to minimize obstructing motion capture markers and prevent participants from grabbing the steel cables that were attached to the waist-belt they wore. Prior to testing, foot position was traced on contact paper to ensure consistent foot placement. Participants were instructed to “relax and react naturally to maintain your balance and prevent yourself from falling.”
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
4

Simultaneous Kinetic and Kinematic Analysis

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
Kinetic and kinematic data were simultaneously captured by two force platforms (AMTI Inc., Watertown, MA, USA) (2000 Hz) and a 10-camera three-dimensional (3D) motion analysis system (Motion Analysis Corporation, Santa Rosa, CA, USA) (200 Hz). The right leg data was collected by one force platform, while the left leg data was collected by another force platform. The EVaRT (Version 4.6, Motion Analysis Corporation, Santa Rosa, CA, USA) software was used to record the kinetic and kinematic data.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
5

Gait Kinematics and Kinetics Analysis

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
Three-dimensional kinematic data were collected using 10 cameras (Vicon, Oxford, UK) operated at 100 Hz. Twelve makers were placed on both feet: bilateral great toe, heel, medial midfoot, lateral midfoot, medial malleolus, and lateral malleolus. Four force platforms (at UAMS; dimension: 40 cm × 60 cm; AMTI, Watertown, MA, USA) or one force platform (at UA; dimension: 60 cm × 90 cm; AMTI, Watertown, MA, USA) were used to collect force and COP data operating at 1000 Hz (Figure 1). Video and force platform data were synchronized using Vicon Nexus (Vicon, Oxford, UK). The participants were instructed to walk on a 10-m walkway at their preferred pace, until three trials (three steps) of complete data were captured where a foot contact (for the affected limb) within the borders of one of the four force platforms (or one lager force platform) was required for a trial to be deemed complete.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
6

Measuring Dynamic Valgus in MCL Injury

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
Joint kinematics were measured using a 12-camera motion analysis system (Motion Analysis Corp, Santa Rose, CA), with images sampled at 200 Hz. Ground reaction force was measured with 2 AMTI force platforms (AMTI, Inc, Watertown, MA), sampled at 1200 Hz. Data was processed in Visual 3D (C-Motion Inc. Germantown, MD) to calculate joint angles, forces, and moments of the knee during the first landing phase of the drop vertical jump maneuver. Frontal (coronal) plane angles were reported as positive for valgus and negative for varus. For this study, the relevant motion that would cause stress on the MCL injured knee is valgus angulation of the injured knee at landing. As seen in Figure 3, dynamic valgus is the motion of the distal femur toward and motion of the distal tibia away from the midline of the body. This consists of femoral/hip adduction, knee abduction, and ankle eversion.

Dynamic valgus was defined as the position or motion, measured in 3 dimensions, of the distal femur toward and distal tibia away from the midline of the body.

+ Open protocol
+ Expand
7

Multi-Modal Kinetic Assessment Protocol

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
The instrumentation used was the following:

A Baiobit sensor, comprising a triaxial accelerometer with multiple sensitivity levels (±2, ±4, ±8, and ±16 g); a 13-bit triaxial magnetometer (±1200 µT); and a triaxial gyroscope with multiple sensitivity levels (±250, ±500, ±1000, and ±2000°/s), manufactured by Rivelo Srl—BTS bioengineering Group, Milan, Italy. The Baiobit sensor works with an accelerometer frequency bandwidth ranging from 4 to 1000 Hz, a gyroscope bandwidth ranging from 4 to 8000 Hz, a magnetometer bandwidth up to 100 Hz, and sensor fusion up to 200 Hz. The Baiobit sensor has inter-instrument correlation coefficient ranging between 0.90 and 0.99, and an intra-instrument coefficient of variation of ≤2.5%, making it suitable for the assessment of physical activity with the same technical specifications of G-WALK (BTS Bioengineering, Garbagnate, Italy) [16 (link),17 (link),18 (link)].

Two three-dimensional AMTI force platforms (dimensions: 464 × 508 × 82.5 mm; AMTI, Wetertown, MA, USA, sampling rate = 200 Hz).

An optoelectronic system composed by an eight-infrared camera (BTS Bioengineering, Garbagnate, Italy).

+ Open protocol
+ Expand
8

Lower Extremity Gait Analysis Workflow

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
The gait analysis was used to drive MsM and FEM. A Vicon motion capture system (Oxford Metrics Ltd., Oxford, UK) consisting of eight cameras and two AMTI force platforms (Watertown, MA, USA) was utilized to capture the kinematic and kinetic lower extremities during HHS gait. The kinematic and kinetic data were measured synchronously at frequencies of 100 and 1,000 Hz, respectively. The marker set was placed on the subject’s various lower-extremity key points according to generic GaitModel 2,392 in Opensim. One static standing trial and six successful waking trials were captured on each heel height condition. For walking trail data acquisition, the subject walked through the motion capture area in a straight direction at their self-pace with both feet stepping entirely at the force platforms. The captured representative data of six trials of each heel height were selected for MsM analysis.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
9

Motion Capture and Force Data Protocol

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
Kinematic data were sampled at 120 Hz using a 12-camera motion capture system (Motion Analysis Corporation, Santa Rosa, CA). A manufacturer recommended calibration was performed prior testing. A force platform (AMTI, Watertown, MA) was embedded into the floor and force data were sampled at 1200 Hz and time-synchronized with the motion capture system.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
10

Evaluating Dynamic and Static Balance

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
Dynamic balance
The dynamic balance will be assessed with participants standing on a force platform (AMTI, Watertown, MA, USA) with feet shoulder-width apart and arms stabilized at the hip. Participants will be asked to shift their weight anteriorly and posteriorly, and then laterally to the right and left sides as far as possible while retaining their balance. The tasks will be performed repeatedly over a period of 20 s, whereby participants shift their weight in all directions during that time period. The total path length, path length along the medial-lateral as well as anterior-posterior axis, maximal range of sway in the anterior-posterior as well as medial-lateral direction, and velocity along the medial-lateral as well as anterior-posterior axis will be assessed. The center of pressure measurements has been deemed valid and reliable in testing balance in older adults.[14 (link)]
Static balance
The static balance will be measured during a two-legged stance with participants standing on the force platform shoulder-width apart with eyes closed for 30 s. Participants will also perform a one-legged stance with eyes open for 30 s. Three trials for each condition will be performed and the center of pressure will be recorded. To understand the pattern of movement, movement range and length of path will be analyzed and a multifractal analysis will be performed.[15 (link)]
+ Open protocol
+ Expand

About PubCompare

Our mission is to provide scientists with the largest repository of trustworthy protocols and intelligent analytical tools, thereby offering them extensive information to design robust protocols aimed at minimizing the risk of failures.

We believe that the most crucial aspect is to grant scientists access to a wide range of reliable sources and new useful tools that surpass human capabilities.

However, we trust in allowing scientists to determine how to construct their own protocols based on this information, as they are the experts in their field.

Ready to get started?

Sign up for free.
Registration takes 20 seconds.
Available from any computer
No download required

Sign up now

Revolutionizing how scientists
search and build protocols!