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%).
DOCUMENT
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.
DOCUMENT
An important performance determinant in wheelchair sports is the power exchanged between the athletewheelchair combination and the environment, in short, mechanical power. Inertial measurement units (IMUs) might be used to estimate the exchanged mechanical power during wheelchair sports practice. However, to validly apply IMUs for mechanical power assessment in wheelchair sports, a well-founded and unambiguous theoretical framework is required that follows the dynamics of manual wheelchair propulsion. Therefore, this research has two goals. First, to present a theoretical framework that supports the use of IMUs to estimate power output via power balance equations. Second, to demonstrate the use of the IMU-based power estimates during wheelchair propulsion based on experimental data. Mechanical power during straight-line wheelchair propulsion on a treadmill was estimated using a wheel mounted IMU and was subsequently compared to optical motion capture data serving as a reference. IMU-based power was calculated from rolling resistance (estimated from drag tests) and change in kinetic energy (estimated using wheelchair velocity and wheelchair acceleration). The results reveal no significant difference between reference power values and the proposed IMU-based power (1.8% mean difference, N.S.). As the estimated rolling resistance shows a 0.9–1.7% underestimation, over time, IMU-based power will be slightly underestimated as well. To conclude, the theoretical framework and the resulting IMU model seems to provide acceptable estimates of mechanical power during straight-line wheelchair propulsion in wheelchair (sports) practice, and it is an important first step towards feasible power estimations in all wheelchair sports situations.
DOCUMENT
