Skip to main content
Fig. 3 | Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation

Fig. 3

From: Assessment of dynamic balancing responses following perturbations during slow walking in relation to clinical outcome measures for high-functioning post-stroke subjects

Fig. 3

Kinematics and kinetics following backward perturbation. a CoMAP trajectories and GRFAP and CoPAP signals (mean values and standard deviations) for representative healthy subject and representative right-sided hemiparetic subject over one gait cycle. b ΔCoMAP shown for all subjects along with covariance error ellipse. c Group mean values and standard deviations for the ΔCoMAP averaged for perturbations occurring at heel contact of left (L) or right (R) leg for group of healthy subjects and for perturbations occurring at heel contact of non-paretic (NP) or paretic (P) leg both subgroups of stroke subjects. d Group mean values and standard deviations for the ΔGRFAP averaged for perturbations occurring at heel contact of left (L) or right (R) leg for group of healthy subjects and for perturbations occurring at heel contact of non-paretic (NP) or paretic (P) leg both subgroups of stroke subjects – “in-stance” period of response. e Group mean values and standard deviations for the ΔGRFAP averaged for perturbations occurring at heel contact of left (L) or right (R) leg for group of healthy subjects and for perturbations occurring at heel contact of non-paretic (NP) or paretic (P) leg both subgroups of stroke subjects - “stepping” period of response. Asterisk (*) indicates a significant difference between groups in Bonferroni post-hoc paired comparisons

Back to article page