Background: Human babies are carried by their caregivers during infancy, and the use of ergonomic aids to wear the baby on the body has recently grown in popularity. However, the effects of wearing or holding a baby in-arms on an individual's mechanics during gait and a common object retrieval task are not fully understood.
Research Question: What are the differences in: 1) spatiotemporal, lower extremity kinematics, and ground reaction force variables during gait, and 2) technique, center of mass motion, and kinematics during an object retrieval task between holding and wearing an infant mannequin?
Methods: In this prospective biomechanics study, 10 healthy females performed over-ground walking and an object retrieval task in three conditions, holding: (1) nothing (unloaded), (2) an infant mannequin in-arms, and (3) an infant mannequin in a baby carrier. Mechanics were compared using repeated measures ANOVA.
Results: During gait, greater vertical ground reaction force and impulse and braking force was found during the in-arms and carrier conditions compared to unloaded. Significant but small (<5°) differences were found between conditions in lower extremity kinematics. Increased back extension was found during carrier and in-arms compared to unloaded. Step length was the only spatiotemporal parameter that differed between conditions. During object retrieval, most participants used a squatting technique to retrieve the object from the floor. They maintained a more upright posture, with less trunk flexion and anteroposterior movement of their center of mass, and also did not try to fold forward over their hips during the two loaded conditions. Lower extremity kinematics did not differ between unloaded and carrier, suggesting that babywearing may promote more similar lower extremity mechanics to not carrying anything.
Significance: Holding or wearing an infant provides a mechanical constraint that impacts the forces and kinematics, which has implications for caregivers' pain and dysfunction.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9423689 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2020.05.013 | DOI Listing |
Sensors (Basel)
December 2024
School of Biological and Environmental Sciences, Liverpool John Moores University, James Parsons Building, Byrom Street, Liverpool L3 3AF, UK.
Camera traps offer enormous new opportunities in ecological studies, but current automated image analysis methods often lack the contextual richness needed to support impactful conservation outcomes. Integrating vision-language models into these workflows could address this gap by providing enhanced contextual understanding and enabling advanced queries across temporal and spatial dimensions. Here, we present an integrated approach that combines deep learning-based vision and language models to improve ecological reporting using data from camera traps.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFSci Rep
January 2025
School of Computer and Control Engineering, Qiqihar University, Qiqihar, 161003, China.
Sci Rep
January 2025
Bates College Program in Neuroscience, Bates College, Lewiston, ME, USA.
Cortex
December 2024
Brain Research and Cognition Center (CerCo), CNRS, UMR5549, France; University of Toulouse, Faculty of Health, France.
The precise and fleeting moment of rich recollection triggered by an environmental cue is difficult to reproduce in the lab. However, epilepsy patients can experience sudden reminiscences after intracranial electrical brain stimulation (EBS). In these cases, the transient brain state related to the activation of the engram and its conscious perception can be recorded using intracerebral EEG (iEEG).
View Article and Find Full Text PDFPsychophysiology
January 2025
Department of Psychology, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt Am Main, Germany.
According to the predictive processing framework, our brain constantly generates predictions based on past experiences and compares these predictions with incoming sensory information. When an event contradicts these predictions, it results in a prediction error (PE), which has been shown to enhance subsequent memory. However, the neural mechanisms underlying the influence of PEs on subsequent memory remain unclear.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFEnter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!