{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.020933977455716585, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004025764895330112, 'mean_word_length': 5.542105263157895, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Effects of camber on wheeling efficiency in the experienced and inexperienced wheelchair user.

The objective of this study was to determine whether energy costs differed between 0 degrees , 3 degrees , and 6 degrees of camber during steady state overground wheeling. Three subject groups were examined: experienced wheelchair users with disabilities (thoracic lesion level 6 and below), nondisabled individuals with manual wheeling experience, and nondisabled individuals with no manual wheeling experience. Heart rate, rating of perceived exertion, visual analog scale for comfort, and a user preference questionnaire were collected for all subjects. Expired gas analysis data were collected for the group with disabilities. No statistically significant differences emerged in respiratory measures for camber angle or group. A camber of 6 degrees was most preferred in terms of stability on a side slope, hand comfort on the pushrims, maneuverability, and overall preference. Rear-wheel camber angle did not affect the energy expenditure of manual wheelchair propulsion, as measured by cardiopulmonary means. The individual manual wheelchair user's perceived level of comfort should be the determining factor in rear-wheel camber selection.