Cited by 295Balance, Gait, and Falls PreventionMotor Control and AdaptationStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery

Intrasubject Variability of Selected Force-Platform Parameters in the Quantification of Postural Control

Geurts, Alexander C.H., Nienhuis, Bart, Mulder, Theo W.·1993·Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

Abstract

Platform stabilometry is increasingly applied to monitor or re-educate standing balance in clinical rehabilitation. Consequently, insight is needed into the validity, reliability, and sensitivity of different force-platform parameters. This study focuses on the intrasubject variability as the major source of variance (unreliability) in the study of human motor skills. The intrasubject variability of several, commonly applied force-platform parameters was determined across ten repeated tests of quiet two-legged standing in healthy subjects to identify the most consistent and stable parameters in the quantification of postural control. The variability of the root mean square (RMS) amplitude, peak-to-peak amplitude, mean frequency, and RMS velocity of the fore-aft and lateral components of the center-of-pressure fluctuations was investigated under varying (visual and cognitive) task conditions. The results indicate that all selected parameters show considerable intrasubject variability irrespective of the task context. Nonetheless, both the RMS amplitude and RMS velocity in either direction of sway do not demonstrate a significant trend across repeated tests. Among the selected parameters, the RMS velocity in the fore-aft direction shows the greatest intrasubject consistency, as well as a high sensitivity to, for example, visual deprivation. These findings support the reliability and validity of this parameter in the clinical quantification of postural control.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0003-9993(23)00004-7

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Geurts, A. C. H., Nienhuis, B., & Mulder, T. W.
Affiliations
Sint Maartenskliniek (NL)
Venue
Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1993-11
Volume
74
Issue
11
Pages
1144-1150
ISSN
0003-9993 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2400239684
Cited by
295
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 17
FWCI
11.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Balance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Motor Control and Adaptation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Stroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Keywords
within-person variability, postural control, standing balance, sway velocity, sway amplitude, visual deprivation, cognitive load, reliability statistics, validity, rehabilitation
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Postural Balance, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Models, Biological, Posture, Reproducibility of Results

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review