The CFP (center of foot pressure) Tracking Test, in which participants pursue a randomly moving target using CFP, is performed in standing position similar to the dynamic balance board and bass dynamic balance tests. The relations among the results of these three tests were examined in 30 young, healthy participants. No significant sex differences were observed between tests. Moderate correlations were observed between the results of the CFP Tracking Test and the balance tests, but not between the two balance tests. The CFP Tracking Test was related to the two balance tests, but evaluates unique abilities other than balance ability.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AmbegaonkarJ. P.CaswellS. V.WinchesterJ. B.ShimokochiY.CortesN.CaswellA. M. (2008) Balance comparisons between female dancers and active nondancers. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 84(1), 24–29.
2.
BassR. I. (1939) An analysis of the components of tests of semicircular canal function and of static and dynamic balance. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 10(2), 33–52.
3.
BlumeD. D. (1978) Zu einigen wesentlichen theoretischen Grundpositionen für die Untersuchung der koordinativen Fähigkeiten. Theorie und Praxis der Körperkultur, 27, 29–36.
4.
BuddenbergL. A.DavisC. (2000) Test-retest reliability of the Purdue Pegboard Test. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 54, 555–558.
5.
DrowatzkyJ. N.ZuccatoF. C. (1967) Interrelationships between selected measures of static and dynamic balance. Research Quarterly, 38(3), 509–510.
6.
FerslewK. H.MannoJ. E.MannoB. R.VekoviusW. A.HubbardJ. M.BairnsfatherL. E. (1982) Pursuit Meter II: A computer-based device for testing pursuit-tracking performance. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 54(3), 779–784.
7.
HanneyW. J. (2000) Proprioceptive training for ankle instability. Strength Conditioning Journal, 22(5), 63–68.
8.
HenatschH. D.LangerH. H. (1985) Basic neurophysiology of motor skills in sport: A review. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 6, 2–14.
9.
HiiragiY. (2008) Measuring and comparing the base of support and movable range of center of gravity. Rigakuryoho Kagaku, 23(2), 229–234.
10.
KawabataH.DemuraS.UchiyamaM. (2012) Reliability and sex differences in a coordination test of a tracking moving target with the center of foot pressure. Advances in Physical Education, 2(3), 77–81.
11.
LandisJ. R.KochG. G. (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174.
12.
NagasawaY.DemuraS. (2002) Development of an apparatus to estimate coordinated exertion of force. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 94, 899–913.
13.
OgayaS.IkezoeT.SodaN.IchihashiN. (2011) Effects of balance training using wobble boards in the elderly. Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 25(9), 2616–2622.
14.
OliverG. D.Di BrezzoR. (2009) Functional balance training in collegiate women athletes. Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 23(7), 2124–2129.
15.
OsborneM. D.ChouL. S.LaskowskiE. R.SmithJ.KaufmanK. R. (2001) The effect of ankle disk training on muscle reaction time in participants with a history of ankle sprain. American Journal of Sports Medicine, 29(5), 627–632.
16.
RiviereC. N.ThakorN. V. (1996) Effects of age and disability on tracking tasks with a computer mouse: Accuracy and linearity. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, 33(1), 6–15.
17.
ShigematsuR.TanakaK.HollandG.NakagaichiM.ChangM.TakeshimaN.NodaF.TanakaY.MimuraK. (2001) Validation of the functional fitness age (FFA) index in older Japanese women. Aging, 13(5), 385–390.
18.
Shumway-CookA.BrauerS.WoollacottM. (2000) Predicting the probability for falls in community-dwelling older adults using the Timed Up & Go Test. Physical Therapy, 80, 896–903.
19.
WilmoreJ. H.CostillD. L. (1994) Neurological control of movement. In MauckS. (Ed.), Physiology of Sport and Exercise. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Pp. 44–65.
20.
YoshidaT.OdaM.OsafuneH.MiyajiM.YamamotoM. (1997) The evaluation of tracking ability by the body tracking test (BTT). Equilibrium Research, 56(1), 39–44.
