YaBeSH Engineering and Technology Library

    • Journals
    • PaperQuest
    • YSE Standards
    • YaBeSH
    • Login
    View Item 
    •   YE&T Library
    • ASME
    • Journal of Biomechanical Engineering
    • View Item
    •   YE&T Library
    • ASME
    • Journal of Biomechanical Engineering
    • 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

    Comparison of a Scaled Cadaver-Based Musculoskeletal Model With a Clinical Upper Extremity Model

    Source: Journal of Biomechanical Engineering:;2022:;volume( 145 ):;issue: 004::page 41012-1
    Author:
    Nagaraja, Vikranth H.
    ,
    Bergmann, Jeroen H. M.
    ,
    Andersen, Michael S.
    ,
    Thompson, Mark S.
    DOI: 10.1115/1.4056172
    Publisher: The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)
    Abstract: Reliably and accurately estimating joint/segmental kinematics from optical motion capture data has remained challenging. Studies objectively characterizing human movement patterns have typically involved inverse kinematics and inverse dynamics techniques. Subsequent research has included scaled cadaver-based musculoskeletal (MSK) modeling for noninvasively estimating joint and muscle loads. As one of the ways to enhance confidence in the validity of MSK model predictions, the kinematics from the preceding step that drives such a model needs to be checked for agreement or compared with established/widely used models. This study rigorously compares the upper extremity (UE) joint kinematics calculated by the Dutch Shoulder Model implemented in the AnyBody Managed Model Repository (involving multibody kinematics optimization (MKO)) with those estimated by the Vicon Plug-in Gait model (involving single-body kinematics optimization (SKO)). Ten subjects performed three trials of (different types of) reaching tasks in a three-dimensional marker-based optical motion capture laboratory setting. Joint angles, processed marker trajectories, and reconstruction residuals corresponding to both models were compared. Scatter plots and Bland–Altman plots were used to assess the agreement between the two model outputs. Results showed the largest differences between the two models for shoulder, followed by elbow and wrist, with all root-mean-squared differences less than 10 deg (although this limit might be unacceptable for clinical use). Strong-to-excellent Spearman's rank correlation coefficients were found between the two model outputs. The Bland–Altman plots showed a good agreement between most of the outputs. In conclusion, results indicate that these two models with different kinematic algorithms broadly agree with each other, albeit with few key differences.
    • Download: (1.593Mb)
    • Show Full MetaData Hide Full MetaData
    • Get RIS
    • Item Order
    • Go To Publisher
    • Price: 5000 Rial
    • Statistics

      Comparison of a Scaled Cadaver-Based Musculoskeletal Model With a Clinical Upper Extremity Model

    URI
    http://yetl.yabesh.ir/yetl1/handle/yetl/4294323
    Collections
    • Journal of Biomechanical Engineering

    Show full item record

    contributor authorNagaraja, Vikranth H.
    contributor authorBergmann, Jeroen H. M.
    contributor authorAndersen, Michael S.
    contributor authorThompson, Mark S.
    date accessioned2023-11-29T18:41:29Z
    date available2023-11-29T18:41:29Z
    date copyright12/9/2022 12:00:00 AM
    date issued12/9/2022 12:00:00 AM
    date issued2022-12-09
    identifier issn0148-0731
    identifier otherbio_145_04_041012.pdf
    identifier urihttp://yetl.yabesh.ir/yetl1/handle/yetl/4294323
    description abstractReliably and accurately estimating joint/segmental kinematics from optical motion capture data has remained challenging. Studies objectively characterizing human movement patterns have typically involved inverse kinematics and inverse dynamics techniques. Subsequent research has included scaled cadaver-based musculoskeletal (MSK) modeling for noninvasively estimating joint and muscle loads. As one of the ways to enhance confidence in the validity of MSK model predictions, the kinematics from the preceding step that drives such a model needs to be checked for agreement or compared with established/widely used models. This study rigorously compares the upper extremity (UE) joint kinematics calculated by the Dutch Shoulder Model implemented in the AnyBody Managed Model Repository (involving multibody kinematics optimization (MKO)) with those estimated by the Vicon Plug-in Gait model (involving single-body kinematics optimization (SKO)). Ten subjects performed three trials of (different types of) reaching tasks in a three-dimensional marker-based optical motion capture laboratory setting. Joint angles, processed marker trajectories, and reconstruction residuals corresponding to both models were compared. Scatter plots and Bland–Altman plots were used to assess the agreement between the two model outputs. Results showed the largest differences between the two models for shoulder, followed by elbow and wrist, with all root-mean-squared differences less than 10 deg (although this limit might be unacceptable for clinical use). Strong-to-excellent Spearman's rank correlation coefficients were found between the two model outputs. The Bland–Altman plots showed a good agreement between most of the outputs. In conclusion, results indicate that these two models with different kinematic algorithms broadly agree with each other, albeit with few key differences.
    publisherThe American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)
    titleComparison of a Scaled Cadaver-Based Musculoskeletal Model With a Clinical Upper Extremity Model
    typeJournal Paper
    journal volume145
    journal issue4
    journal titleJournal of Biomechanical Engineering
    identifier doi10.1115/1.4056172
    journal fristpage41012-1
    journal lastpage41012-12
    page12
    treeJournal of Biomechanical Engineering:;2022:;volume( 145 ):;issue: 004
    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