Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Fig 1.

Two types of wheelchair we used in this experiment (sagittal plane).

The area and height between RX_ABS Lo (a) and RX-1 (b) are same. The pipes of back support of both wheelchairs are inclined to backward in the middle of the pipe.

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Fig 2.

Two types of wheelchairs we used in this experiment (horizontal plane).

The area and height between RX_ABS Lo (a) and RX-1 (b) are same. RX_ABS Lo has pelvic support belt and thoracic support belt (a). RX-1 has thoracic support belt. The belt was stretched tight.

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Fig 3.

Repositioning attempts.

Repositioning are defined as neck or trunk extension greater than 5°. Characteristic repositioning is shown in (a)→(b). For all individuals, there were fewer repositioning attempts with RX_RBS Lo than with RX-1 (c).

More »

Fig 3 Expand

Table 1.

Operational definitions and relevance.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Fig 4.

Cervical angle change in a representative subject.

Time-dependent changes in cervical angle are shown. Time is represented on the horizontal axis. Six trapezia divided into 5-minute period were created to calculate the area under the curve (AUC). AUC values for RX_ABS Lo were larger than those for RX-1. These findings indicate a more erect neck alignment with RX_ABS Lo than with RX-1.

More »

Fig 4 Expand

Fig 5.

Representative sitting postures.

The two wheelchair designs are identical, except for back supports. Neck alignment, measured by the cervical angle, was erect with RX_ABS Lo (a). Neck alignment was posed in a FHP with RX-1(b).

More »

Fig 5 Expand

Fig 6.

Buttock and back support pressures in a representative case.

Buttock pressure with RX-ABS Lo was lower and back support pressure was higher in RX_ABS Lo than in RX-1. The back support contact area with RX_ABS Lo was greater with an increased lateral contact area (see arrow) when compared to RX-1. These findings indicate that the pelvic support belt provided adequate support for the pelvis and thorax.

More »

Fig 6 Expand

Table 2.

Area under the curve values for postures and pressure distributions between RX_ABS Lo and RX-1.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Table 3.

Time-dependent changes in cervical and trunk angles according to the wheelchair design (RX-ABS Lo and RX-1).

More »

Table 3 Expand

Table 4.

Time-dependent changes in total buttock and back support pressures according to the wheelchair design (RX-ABS Lo and RX-1).

More »

Table 4 Expand

Table 5.

Time-dependent changes in sensor area and center of back support pressure locations according to the wheelchair design (RX-ABS Lo and RX-1).

More »

Table 5 Expand

Table 6.

Time-dependent changes in the center of buttock pressure location according to the wheelchair design (RX-ABS Lo and RX-1).

More »

Table 6 Expand

Table 7.

The time of repositioning (RX-ABS Lo and RX-1).

More »

Table 7 Expand