English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Following a slip occurred in the overground walking, a fall can be classified into two exclusive categories: feet-forward fall or split fall. The purposes of this study were to investigate whether the placement of the recovery foot would determine the slip types, the likelihood of fall, and the severity associated with each fall. The fall severity was estimated based on the impact velocity of body segments or trunk orientation upon fall arrest. One hundred ninety-five participants experienced a novel, unannounced slip while walking on a 7-m walkway. Kinematics of a full-body marker set was collected by a motion capture system which was synchronized with the force plates and loadcell. The results showed that the recovery foot landing position relative to the projected center of mass position at the recovery foot touchdown determined the slip type by 90.8%. Feet-forward slips led to significantly lower rate of falls than did split slips (47.6 vs. 67.8%, p &lt; 0.01). Yet, feet-forward falls were much more dangerous because they were associated with significantly greater estimated maximum hip impact velocity (p &lt; 0.001) and trunk backward leaning angle (p &lt; 0.001) in comparison to split falls.

Can Recovery Foot Placement Affect Older Adults’ Slip-Fall Severity?