Download PDF
Int J Sports Med 2014; 35(03): 223-231
DOI: 10.1055/s-0033-1345178
Orthopedics & Biomechanics
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Hand-Rim Forces and Gross Mechanical Efficiency in Asynchronous and Synchronous Wheelchair Propulsion: A Comparison

J. P. Lenton
1   Peter Harrison Centre for Disability Sport, School of Sport, Exercise and Health Sciences, Loughborough University, Loughborough, United Kingdom
,
L. van der Woude
2   Center for Human Movement Sciences, University Medical Center ­Groningen, Netherlands
,
N. Fowler
3   Exercise and Sport Science, Manchester Metropolitan University, Crewe, United Kingdom
,
G. Nicholson
4   ASPIRE Centre for Disability Sciences, Institute of Orthopaedics and ­Musculosketal Science, University College London, United Kingdom
,
K. Tolfrey
1   Peter Harrison Centre for Disability Sport, School of Sport, Exercise and Health Sciences, Loughborough University, Loughborough, United Kingdom
,
V. Goosey-Tolfrey
1   Peter Harrison Centre for Disability Sport, School of Sport, Exercise and Health Sciences, Loughborough University, Loughborough, United Kingdom
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History



accepted after revision 17 April 2013

Publication Date:
14 August 2013 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

To compare the force application characteristics at various push frequencies of asynchronous (ASY) and synchronous (SYN) hand-rim propulsion, 8 able-bodied participants performed a separate sub-maximal exercise test on a wheelchair roller ergometer for each propulsion mode. Each test consisted of a series of 5, 4-min exercise blocks at 1.8 m · s−1 – initially at their freely chosen frequency (FCF), followed by four counter-balanced trials at 60, 80, 120 and 140% FCF. Kinetic data was obtained using a SMARTWheel, measuring forces and moments. The gross efficiency (GE) was determined as the ratio of external work done and the total energy expended. The ASY propulsion produced higher force measures for FRES, FTAN, rate of force development & FEF (P<0.05), while there was no difference in GE values (P=0.518). In pair-matched push frequencies (ASY80:SYN60, ASY100:SYN80, ASY120:SYN100 and ASY140:SYN120), ASY propulsion forces remained significantly higher (FRES, FTAN, rate of force development & FEF P<0.05), and there was no significant effect on GE (P=0.456). Both ASY and SYN propulsion demonstrate similar trends: changes in push frequency are accompanied by changes in absolute force even without changes in the gross pattern/trend of force application, FEF or GE. Matched push frequencies continue to produce significant differences in force measures but not GE. This suggests ASY propulsion is the predominant factor in force application differences. The ASY would appear to offer a kinetic disadvantage to SYN propulsion and no physiological advantage under current testing conditions.

Key words

push frequency - SMARTWheel - fraction of effective force - gross efficiency - wheelchair ergometry
 

  • References

  • 1 Abel T, Kroner M, Rojas Vega S, Peters C, Klose C, Platen P. Energy expenditure in wheelchair racing and handbiking – a basis for prevention of cardiovascular diseases in those with disabilities. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil 2003; 10: 371-376
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Asato KT, Cooper RA, Robertson RN, Ster JF. SMARTWheel: development and testing of a system for measuring manual wheelchair propulsion dynamics. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 1993; 40: 1320-1324
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Boninger ML, Baldwin M, Cooper RA, Koontz A, Chan L. Manual wheelchair pushrim biomechanics and axle position. Arch Phys Med Rehab 2000; 81: 608-613
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Boninger ML, Cooper RA, Baldwin MA, Shimada SD, Koontz A. Wheelchair pushrim kinetics: body weight and median nerve function. Arch Phys Med Rehab 1999; 80: 910-915
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Boninger ML, Souza AL, Cooper RA, Fitzgerald SG, Koontz AM, Fay BT. Propulsion patterns and pushrim biomechanics in manual wheelchair propulsion. Am J Phys Med Rehab 2002; 76: 420-426
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Bregman DJJ, van Drongelen S, Veeger HEJ. Is effective force application in handrim wheelchair propulsion also efficient?. Clin Biomech 2009; 24: 13-19
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Cooper RA, Robertson RN, van Sickle DP, Boninger ML. Methods for determining three-dimensional wheelchair pushrim forces and moments: a technical note. J Rehab Res Dev 1997; 34: 162-170
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Dallmeijer AJ, van der Woude LHV, Veeger HEJ, Hollander AP. Effectiveness of force application in manual wheelchair propulsion in persons with spinal cord injuries. Am J Phys Med Rehab 1998; 77: 213-221
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 van Dieen JH, Ogita F, de Haan A. Reduced neural drive in bilateral exertions: a performance-limiting factor?. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2003; 35: 111-118
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Glaser RM, Sawka MN, Young RE, Suryaprasad AG. Applied physiology for wheelchair design. J Physiol 1980; 48: 41-44
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Goosey-Tolfrey VL, Sindall P. The effects of arm crank strategy on physiological responses and mechanical efficiency during sub-maximal exercise. J Sports Sci 2007; 25: 453-460
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 de Groot S, Veeger HEJ, Hollander AP, van der Woude LHV. Consequence of feedback-based learning of an effective hand rim wheelchair force production on mechanical efficiency. Clin Biomech 2002; 17: 219-226
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 de Groot S, Veeger HEJ, Hollander AP, van der Woude LHV. Wheelchair propulsion technique and mechanical efficiency after 3 wk of practice. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2002; 34: 756-766
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Harriss DJ, Atkinson G. Update – ethical Standards in Sport and Exercise Science Research. Int J Sports Med 2011; 32: 819-821
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Kauzlarich JJ, van der Woude LHV, Hopman MTE, van Kemenade CH. (eds.). Biomedical aspects of manual wheelchair propulsion: The state of the Art II. IOS Press, Amsterdam; Washington DC: 1999: 158-170
    Google Scholar
  • 16 Kotajarvi BR, Basford JR, An KN, Morrow DA, Kaufman KR. The effect of visual biofeedback on the propulsion effectiveness of experienced wheelchair users. Arch Phys Med Rehab 2006; 87: 510-515
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Kwarciak AM, Yarossi M, Ramanujan A, Dyson-Hidson TA, Sisto SA. Evaluation of wheelchair tire rolling resistance using dynamometer-based coast down tests. J Rehab Res Dev 2009; 46: 931-938
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Lenton JP, Fowler N, van der Woude L, Goosey-Tolfrey VL. Efficiency of wheelchair propulsion and effects of strategy. Int J Sports Med 2007; 28: 1-6
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Lenton JP, Fowler NE, van der Woude LHV, Goosey-Tolfrey VL. Wheelchair propulsion: effects of experience and push strategy on efficiency and perceived exertion. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab 2008; 33: 870-879
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Lenton JP, van der Woude LHV, Fowler NE, Goosey-Tolfrey VL. Effects of arm frequency during synchronous and asynchronous wheelchair propulsion on efficiency. Int J Sports Med 2009; 30: 233-239
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Lenton JP, van der Woude LHV, Fowler NE, Goosey-Tolfrey VL. Effects of 4 weeks asynchronous hand-rim wheelchair practice on mechanical efficiency and timing. Disabil Rehabil 2010; 32: 2155-2164
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Lenton JP, van der Woude LHV, Fowler NE, Nicholson G, Tolfrey K, Goosey-Tolfrey VL. Hand-rim forces and gross mechanical efficiency at various frequencies of wheelchair propulsion. Int J Sports Med 2012; [Epub ahead of print]
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Mossberg K, Willman C, Topor MA, Crook H, Patak S. Comparison of asynchronous versus synchronous arm crank ergometry. Spinal Cord 1999; 37: 569-574
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Niesing R, Eijskoot F, Kranse R, den Ouden AH, Storm J, Veeger HJ, van der Woude LHV, Snijders CJ. Computer-controlled wheelchair ergometer. Med Biol Eng Comput 1990; 28: 23-29
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Peronnet F, Massicotte D. Table of non-protein respiratory quotient: an update. Can J Sport Sci 1991; 16: 23-29
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Robertson RN, Boninger ML, Cooper RA, Shimada SD. Pushrim forces and joint kinetics during wheelchair propulsion. Arch Phys Med Rehab 1996; 77: 856-864
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Rozendaal LA, Veeger HEJ, van der Woude LHV. The push force pattern in manual wheelchair propulsion as a balance between cost and effect. J Biomech 2000; 36: 239-247
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Vanlandewijck Y, Theisen D, Daly D. Wheelchair propulsion biomechanics: implications for wheelchair sports. Sports Med 2001; 31: 339-367
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Veeger HEJ, van der Woude LHV, Rozendal RH. Effect of hand-rim velocity on mechanical efficiency in wheelchair propulsion. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1992; 24: 100-107
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Whipp BJ, Wasserman K. Efficiency of muscular work. J Appl Physiol 1969; 26: 644-648
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 van der Woude LHV, Bosmans I, Bervoets B, Veeger HEJ. Handcycling: different modes and gear ratio. J Med Eng Tech 2000; 24: 242-249
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 van der Woude LH, Bouw A, van Wegen J, van As H, Veeger D, de Groot S. Seat height: effects on submaximal hand rim wheelchair performance during spinal cord injury rehabilitation. J Rehab Med 2009; 41: 143-149
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar