Article

Can one angle be simply subtracted from another to determine range of motion in three-dimensional motion analysis?

a Laboratoire de Simulation et Modélisation du Mouvement, Département de Kinésiologie , Université de Montréal , Québec , Canada.
Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering (Impact Factor: 1.39). 07/2012; DOI: 10.1080/10255842.2012.696104
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To determine the range of motion of a joint between an initial orientation and a final orientation, it is convenient to subtract initial joint angles from final joint angles, a method referred to as the vectorial approach. However, for three-dimensional movements, the vectorial approach is not mathematically correct. To determine the joint range of motion, the rotation matrix between the two orientations should be calculated, and angles describing the range of motion should be extracted from this matrix, a method referred to as the matrical approach. As the matrical approach is less straightforward to implement, it is of interest to identify situations in which the vectorial approach leads to insubstantial errors. In this study, the vectorial approach was compared to the matrical approach, and theoretical justification was given for situations in which the vectorial approach can reasonably be used. The main findings are that the vectorial approach can be used if (1) the motion is planar (Woltring HJ. 1994. 3-D attitude representation of human joints: a standardization proposal. J Biomech 27(12): 1399-1414), (2) the angles between the final and the initial orientation are small (Woltring HJ. 1991. Representation and calculation of 3-D joint movement. Hum Mov Sci 10(5): 603-616), (3) the angles between the initial orientation of the distal segment and the proximal segment are small and finally (4) when only one large angle occurs between the initial orientation of the distal segment and the proximal segment and the angle sequence is chosen in such a way that this large angle occurs on the first axis of rotation. These findings provide specific criteria to consider when choosing the angle sequence to use for movement analysis.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
84 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Accurate measurement of knee kinematics during functional activities suffers mainly from soft tissue artifact (STA): the combination of local surface deformations and rigid movement of markers relative to the underlying bone (also called rigid STA movement: RSTAM). The present study proposes to assess RSTAM on the thigh, shank and knee joint and to observe possible features between subjects. Nineteen subjects with knee arthroplasty were asked to walk on a treadmill while a bi-plane fluoroscopic system (X-rays) and a stereophotogrammetric system (skin markers) recorded their knee movement. The RSTAM was defined as the rigid movement of the cluster of skin markers relative to the prosthesis. The results showed that RSTAM amplitude represents approximately 80-100% of the STA. The vertical axis of the anatomical frame of the femur was influenced the most by RSTAM. Combined with tibial error, internal/external rotation angle and distraction-compression were the knee kinematics parameters most affected by RSTAM during the gait cycle, with average RMS values of 3.8° and 11.1mm. This study highlighted higher RSTAM during the swing phase particularly in the thigh segment and suggests new features for RSTAM such as the particular shape of some RSTAM waveforms and the absence of RSTAM in certain kinematics during the gait phases. The comparison of coefficient of multiple correlations showed some similarities of RSTAM between subjects, while some correlations were found with gait speed and BMI. These new insights could potentially allow the development of new methods of compensation to avoid STA.
    IEEE transactions on bio-medical engineering 06/2013; · 2.15 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: For many clinical applications it is necessary to non-invasively determine shoulder motion during dynamic movements, and in such cases skin markers are favoured. However, as skin markers may not accurately track the underlying bone motion the methods currently used must be refined. Furthermore, to determine the motion of the shoulder a model is required to relate the obtained marker trajectories to the shoulder kinematics. In Wu et al. (2005) the International Society of Biomechanics (ISB) proposed a shoulder model based on the position of bony landmarks. A limitation of the ISB recommendations is that the reference positions of the shoulder joints are not standardized. The aims of this research project were to develop a method to accurately determine shoulder kinematics using skin markers, and to investigate the effect of introduction of a standardized reference configuration. Fifteen subjects, free from shoulder pathology, performed arm elevations while skin marker trajectories were tracked. Shoulder kinematics were reconstructed using a chain model and extended Kalman filter. The results revealed significant differences between the kinematics obtained with and without introduction of the reference configuration. The curves of joint angle tended towards 0° for 0° of humerus elevation when the reference configuration was introduced. In conclusion, the shoulder kinematics obtained with introduction of the reference configuration were found to be easier to interpret than those obtained without introduction of the reference configuration.
    Journal of biomechanics 06/2012; 45(12):2180-3. · 2.66 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: *** http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0268003313002404 __________________________________________________________________ **Please cite this article as: Tafazzol, A., Arjmand, N., Shirazi-Adl, A., Parnianpour, M., Lumbopelvic Rhythm during Forward and Backward Sagittal Trunk Rotations; Combined in vivo Measurement with Inertial Tracking Device and Biomechanical Modeling, Clinical Biomechanics (2013), doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2013.10.021 ================================================================== Background The ratio of total lumbar rotation over pelvic rotation (lumbopelvic rhythm) during trunk sagittal movement is essential to evaluate spinal loads and discriminate between low back pain and asymptomatic population. Methods Angular rotations of the pelvis and lumbar spine as well as their sagittal rhythm during forward flexion and backward extension in upright standing of eight asymptomatic males are measured using an inertial tracking device. The effect of variations in the lumbopelvic ratio during trunk flexion on spinal loads is quantified using a detailed musculoskeletal model. Findings Mean of peak voluntary flexion rotations of the thorax, pelvis, and lumbar were 121° (SD 9.9), 53.0° (SD 5.2), and 60.2° (SD 8.6), respectively. The mean lumbopelvic ratios decreased from 2.51 in 0-30° of trunk flexion to 1.34 in 90-120° range during forward bending while it increased from 1.23 in 90-120° range to 2.86 in 0-30° range during backward extension. Variations in the lumbopelvic ratio from 0.5 to 3 (with an interval of 0.25) at any trunk flexion angle generally reduced the L5-S1 compression and shear forces by up to 21 and 45%, respectively. The measured lumbopelvic ratios resulted overall in near-optimal (minimal) L5-S1 compression forces. Interpretation A simultaneous rhythm between the lumbar and pelvis movements was found during both forward and backward trunk movements. While the lumbar spine contributed more to the trunk rotation during early and final stages of forward flexion and backward extension, respectively, the pelvis contributed more during final and early stages of forward flexion and backward extension, respectively. Our healthy subjects adapted a lumbopelvic coordination that diminished L5-S1 compression force. __________________________________________________________________ Keywords Inertial Tracking Sensors; Forward Flexion; Backward Extension; Lumbopelvic Rhythm; Biomechanical Model
    Clinical Biomechanics 01/2013; · 1.87 Impact Factor

Full-text

View
8 Downloads
Available from
Jun 13, 2014