YaBeSH Engineering and Technology Library

    • Journals
    • PaperQuest
    • YSE Standards
    • YaBeSH
    • Login
    View Item 
    •   YE&T Library
    • ASME
    • Journal of Verification, Validation and Uncertainty Quantification
    • View Item
    •   YE&T Library
    • ASME
    • Journal of Verification, Validation and Uncertainty Quantification
    • View Item
    • All Fields
    • Source Title
    • Year
    • Publisher
    • Title
    • Subject
    • Author
    • DOI
    • ISBN
    Advanced Search
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Archive

    Verification of Manual Digitization Methods During Experimental Simulation of Knee Motion

    Source: Journal of Verification, Validation and Uncertainty Quantification:;2020:;volume( 005 ):;issue: 003::page 031004-1
    Author:
    Hargett, Zachary
    ,
    Gutierrez, Manuel
    ,
    Harman, Melinda
    DOI: 10.1115/1.4048748
    Publisher: The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)
    Abstract: Cadaveric testing is a common approach for verifying mathematical algorithms in computational modeling. In models of total knee replacement (TKR) motion, model inputs commonly include rigid body motions defined using the Grood–Suntay spatial linkage between tibial and femoral components. This approach requires definition of coordinate systems for each rigid TKR component based on fiducial points, manual digitization of a point cloud within the experimental setup, and registration of the orientation relative to bone marker arrays. This study compared variability between two different manual point digitization methods (hand-held stylus and pivot tool each registered in an optical tracking system). This was accomplished by verifying the mathematical algorithm used to calculate the coordinate system from digitized points and quantifying the variability of the digitization methods in a simulated cadaver limb experimental setup. For the hand-held stylus method, the standard deviation was 0.50 mm for the origin and 1.31, 0.51, and 0.62 deg for the x–y–z axes, respectively. Required digitization of each rigid marker array created additional errors of 0.54 mm for the origin and 1.70, 1.66, and 0.98 deg for the x–y–z axes, respectively. For the pivot tool method, the standard deviation was 0.35 mm for the origin and 0.37, 1.27, and 1.24 deg for the x–y–z axes, respectively. In this experimental setup, the pivot tool was the better option for minimizing error while providing repeatable manual digitization of fiducial points and point clouds.
    • Download: (847.2Kb)
    • Show Full MetaData Hide Full MetaData
    • Get RIS
    • Item Order
    • Go To Publisher
    • Price: 5000 Rial
    • Statistics

      Verification of Manual Digitization Methods During Experimental Simulation of Knee Motion

    URI
    http://yetl.yabesh.ir/yetl1/handle/yetl/4275977
    Collections
    • Journal of Verification, Validation and Uncertainty Quantification

    Show full item record

    contributor authorHargett, Zachary
    contributor authorGutierrez, Manuel
    contributor authorHarman, Melinda
    date accessioned2022-02-04T23:02:38Z
    date available2022-02-04T23:02:38Z
    date copyright9/1/2020 12:00:00 AM
    date issued2020
    identifier issn2377-2158
    identifier othervvuq_005_03_031004.pdf
    identifier urihttp://yetl.yabesh.ir/yetl1/handle/yetl/4275977
    description abstractCadaveric testing is a common approach for verifying mathematical algorithms in computational modeling. In models of total knee replacement (TKR) motion, model inputs commonly include rigid body motions defined using the Grood–Suntay spatial linkage between tibial and femoral components. This approach requires definition of coordinate systems for each rigid TKR component based on fiducial points, manual digitization of a point cloud within the experimental setup, and registration of the orientation relative to bone marker arrays. This study compared variability between two different manual point digitization methods (hand-held stylus and pivot tool each registered in an optical tracking system). This was accomplished by verifying the mathematical algorithm used to calculate the coordinate system from digitized points and quantifying the variability of the digitization methods in a simulated cadaver limb experimental setup. For the hand-held stylus method, the standard deviation was 0.50 mm for the origin and 1.31, 0.51, and 0.62 deg for the x–y–z axes, respectively. Required digitization of each rigid marker array created additional errors of 0.54 mm for the origin and 1.70, 1.66, and 0.98 deg for the x–y–z axes, respectively. For the pivot tool method, the standard deviation was 0.35 mm for the origin and 0.37, 1.27, and 1.24 deg for the x–y–z axes, respectively. In this experimental setup, the pivot tool was the better option for minimizing error while providing repeatable manual digitization of fiducial points and point clouds.
    publisherThe American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)
    titleVerification of Manual Digitization Methods During Experimental Simulation of Knee Motion
    typeJournal Paper
    journal volume5
    journal issue3
    journal titleJournal of Verification, Validation and Uncertainty Quantification
    identifier doi10.1115/1.4048748
    journal fristpage031004-1
    journal lastpage031004-5
    page5
    treeJournal of Verification, Validation and Uncertainty Quantification:;2020:;volume( 005 ):;issue: 003
    contenttypeFulltext
    DSpace software copyright © 2002-2015  DuraSpace
    نرم افزار کتابخانه دیجیتال "دی اسپیس" فارسی شده توسط یابش برای کتابخانه های ایرانی | تماس با یابش
    yabeshDSpacePersian
     
    DSpace software copyright © 2002-2015  DuraSpace
    نرم افزار کتابخانه دیجیتال "دی اسپیس" فارسی شده توسط یابش برای کتابخانه های ایرانی | تماس با یابش
    yabeshDSpacePersian