Measurement error of rearfoot kinematics during running between a 100Hz and 30Hz camera

Background: Measurement accuracy is critical for biomechanical gait assessment. Very few studies have determined the accuracy of common clinical rearfoot variables between cameras with different collection frequencies. Research question: What is the measurement error for common rearfoot gait parameters when using a standard 30Hz digital camera compared to 100Hz camera? Type of study: Descriptive. Methods: 100 footfalls were recorded from 10 subjects ( 10 footfalls per subject) running on a treadmill at 2.68m/s. A high-speed digital timer, accurate within 1ms served as an external reference. Markers were placed along the vertical axis of the heel counter and the long axis of the shank. 2D coordinates for the four markers were determined from heel strike to heel lift. Variables of interest included time of heel strike (THS), time of heel lift (THL), time to maximum eversion (TMax), and maximum rearfoot eversion angle (EvMax). Results: THS difference was 29.77ms (+/- 8.77), THL difference was 35.64ms (+/- 6.85), and TMax difference was 16.50ms (+/- 2.54). These temporal values represent a difference equal to 11.9%, 14.3%, and 6.6% of the stance phase of running gait, respectively. EvMax difference was 1.02 degrees (+/- 0.46). Conclusions: A 30Hz camera is accurate, compared to a high-frequency camera, in determining TMax and EvMax during a clinical gait analysis. However, relatively large differences, in excess of 12% of the stance phase of gait, for THS and THL variables were measured.

Contadores eletrônicos no laboratório didático: parte II. Medida de intervalos de tempo sucessivos

Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)

Contadores eletrônicos no laboratório didático: parte I. Montagem e aplicações

Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)

The Coming of Post-reflexive Society: Commodification and Language in Digital Capitalism

Language is a unique aspect of human communication because it can be used to discuss itself in its own terms. For this reason, human societies potentially have superior capacities of co-ordination, reflexive self-correction, and innovation than other animal, physical or cybernetic systems. However, this analysis also reveals that language is interconnected with the economically and technologically mediated social sphere and hence is vulnerable to abstraction, objectification, reification, and therefore ideology – all of which are antithetical to its reflexive function, whilst paradoxically being a fundamental part of it. In particular, in capitalism, language is increasingly commodified within the social domains created and affected by ubiquitous communication technologies. The advent of the so-called ‘knowledge economy’ implicates exchangeable forms of thought (language) as the fundamental commodities of this emerging system. The historical point at which a ‘knowledge economy’ emerges, then, is the critical point at which thought itself becomes a commodified ‘thing’, and language becomes its “objective” means of exchange. However, the processes by which such commodification and objectification occurs obscures the unique social relations within which these language commodities are produced. The latest economic phase of capitalism – the knowledge economy – and the obfuscating trajectory which accompanies it, we argue, is destroying the reflexive capacity of language particularly through the process of commodification. This can be seen in that the language practices that have emerged in conjunction with digital technologies are increasingly non-reflexive and therefore less capable of self-critical, conscious change.