BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is a significant public health problem that can result in physical disability and financial burden for the individual and society. Physical therapy is effective for managing LBP and includes evaluation of posture and movement, interventions directed at modifying posture and movement, and prescription of exercises. However, physical therapists have limited tools for objective evaluation of low back posture and movement and monitoring of exercises, and this evaluation is limited to the time frame of a clinical encounter. There is a need for a valid tool that can be used to evaluate low back posture and movement and monitor exercises outside the clinic. To address this need, a fabric-based, wearable sensor, Motion Tape (MT), was developed and adapted for a low back use case. MT is a low-profile, disposable, self-adhesive, skin-strain sensor developed by spray coating piezoresistive graphene nanocomposites directly onto commercial kinesiology tape. OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study were to (1) validate MT for measuring low back posture and movement and (2) assess the acceptability of MT for users. METHODS: A total of 10 participants without LBP were tested. A 3D optical motion capture system was used as a reference standard to measure low back kinematics. Retroreflective markers and a matrix of MTs were placed on the low back to measure kinematics (motion capture) and strain (MT) simultaneously during low back movements in the sagittal, frontal, and axial planes. Cross-correlation coefficients were calculated to evaluate the concurrent validity of MT strain in reference motion capture kinematics during each movement. The acceptability of MT was assessed using semistructured interviews conducted with each participant after laboratory testing. Interview data were analyzed using rapid qualitative analysis to identify themes and subthemes of user acceptability. RESULTS: Visual inspection of concurrent MT strain and kinematics of the low back indicated that MT can distinguish between different movement directions. Cross-correlation coefficients between MT strain and motion capture kinematics ranged from -0.915 to 0.983, and the strength of the correlations varied across MT placements and low back movement directions. Regarding user acceptability, participants expressed enthusiasm toward MT and believed that it would be helpful for remote interventions for LBP but provided suggestions for improvement. CONCLUSIONS: MT was able to distinguish between different low back movements, and most MTs demonstrated moderate to high correlation with motion capture kinematics. This preliminary laboratory validation of MT provides a basis for future device improvements, which will also involve testing in a free-living environment. Overall, users found MT acceptable for use in physical therapy for managing LBP.

BACKGROUND: Motion Tape (MT) is a low-profile, disposable, self-adhesive wearable sensor that measures skin strain. Preliminary studies have validated MT for measuring lower back movement. However, further analysis is needed to determine if MT can be used to measure lower back muscle engagement. The purpose of this study was to measure differences in MT strain between conditions in which the lower back muscles were relaxed versus maximally activated. METHODS: Ten participants without low back pain were tested. A matrix of six MTs was placed on the lower back, and strain data were captured under a series of conditions. The first condition was a baseline trial, in which participants lay prone and the muscles of the lower back were relaxed. The subsequent trials were maximum voluntary isometric contractions (MVICs), in which participants did not move, but resisted the examiner force in extension or rotational directions to maximally engage their lower back muscles. The mean MT strain was calculated for each condition. A repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to analyze the effects of conditions (baseline, extension, right rotation, and left rotation) and MT position (1-6) on the MT strain. Post hoc analyses were conducted for significant effects from the overall analysis. RESULTS: The results of the ANOVA revealed a significant main effect of condition (p < 0.001) and a significant interaction effect of sensor and condition (p = 0.01). There were significant differences in MT strain between the baseline condition and the extension and rotation MVIC conditions, respectively, for sensors 4, 5, and 6 (p = 0.01-0.04). The largest differences in MT strain were observed between baseline and rotation conditions for sensors 4, 5, and 6. CONCLUSIONS: MT can capture maximal lower back muscle engagement while the trunk remains in a stationary position. Lower sensors are better able to capture muscle engagement than upper sensors. Furthermore, MT captured muscle engagement during rotation conditions better than during extension.