Next Article in Journal
DC Model Cable under Polarity Inversion and Thermal Gradient: Build-Up of Design-Related Space Charge
Previous Article in Journal
Communication Challenges in on-Body and Body-to-Body Wearable Wireless Networks—A Connectivity Perspective
Article Menu
Issue 3 (September) cover image

Export Article

Open AccessArticle
Technologies 2017, 5(3), 44;

Validation of the HUMAC Balance System in Comparison with Conventional Force Plates

University Center for Orthopedic and Trauma Surgery, Faculty of Medicine Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, 01307 Dresden, Germany
Institute of Electrical Systems and Energy Logistics, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Electrical and Energy Systems, Brandenburg University of Technology Cottbus-Senftenberg, 01968 Senftenberg, Germany
Clinic Niederlausitz GmbH, Center for Neurology, 01968 Senftenberg, Germany
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Received: 31 May 2017 / Revised: 10 July 2017 / Accepted: 10 July 2017 / Published: 14 July 2017
PDF [2434 KB, uploaded 14 July 2017]


In recent years, there has been intensified development of cost-effective alternatives to conventional force plates, such as those of Kistler and AMTI, in clinical and scientific research. To our knowledge, the evidence for existing validity and reliability of the HUMAC Balance System has so far been lacking. Over the course of the study, the HUMAC Balance System, which is based on the WII Balance Board technology, was tested. 26 HUMAC Balance Systems in conjunction with 2 force plates, each from the manufacturers Kistler and AMTI, were examined and their properties under static and dynamic conditions were evaluated. Under static conditions, the HUMAC Balance System revealed a relatively constant and comparatively small margin of displacement error. However, tests of the force plates under dynamic conditions revealed contrasting results. The conventional force plates, with a margin of error of 2.5%, proved to have a smaller margin of error compared to the HUMAC Balance System, which had margins of error of 8.6% and 6.1% in x and y directions, respectively. A calibration method was developed to overcome these systematic deviations. After applying the calibration, the Balance Board margin of error was reduced to an acceptable maximum of 0.18%. View Full-Text
Keywords: COP; force plate; AMTI; Kistler; WII; centre of pressure; postural control; balance COP; force plate; AMTI; Kistler; WII; centre of pressure; postural control; balance

Figure 1

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited (CC BY 4.0).

Share & Cite This Article

MDPI and ACS Style

Koltermann, J.J.; Gerber, M.; Beck, H.; Beck, M. Validation of the HUMAC Balance System in Comparison with Conventional Force Plates. Technologies 2017, 5, 44.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats

Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Related Articles

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics



[Return to top]
Technologies EISSN 2227-7080 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert
Back to Top