Fig 1.
Flow chart diagram.
Table 1.
Characteristics of participants.
Fig 2.
Overview of the applied assessments.
The assessments included (1) angular mobility by means of aROM measures in the ankle joint using electro-goniometry and (2) motor accuracy by means of plantarflexion and dorsal extension with biofeedback. Additionally, (3) functional mobility was assessed by means of the Timed “Up & Go” test (TUG) and (4) impact of MS with the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale (MSIS-29).
Fig 3.
Assessment setup for motor accuracy.
Participants sat upright in a chair and were asked to flex and extend their ankle joint (A). Fixations were provided at the knee and ankle; the ankle joint was in line with the rotation axis of the ergometer. Ankle joint position was visualized for plantarflexion and dorsal extension (B) as biofeedback. Participants were asked to replicate the predefined (grey) curve with as accurately as possible (black). Errors were calculated by means of differences between the predefined curve and the position signal in Δ°.
Table 2.
Results of angular mobility and motor accuracy for the active range of motion (top) and motor precision task (bottom) of the ankle joint.
Fig 4.
Angular mobility and motor accuracy.
The graphs illustrate changes of mono-articular mobility (A) and motor accuracy (B) prior (t0), after six weeks of no intervention (t1) as well as after six weeks of WBV (t2). “A” shows significant changes with an asterisk of active range of motion (aROM) in [°] for the ankle joint of the stronger leg (AJSL) and weaker leg (AJWL). “B” illustrates errors (in [V]) during fine motor tasks for the plantar flexion (PF) and dorsal flexion (DF) with the stronger leg (SL, dark grey) and the weaker leg (WL, light grey).
Table 3.
Results of functional mobility and impact of MS during everyday life for the Timed “Up & Go” test (top) and for the MSIS-29 questionnaire scores (bottom).