Estimation of Joint Kinetics During Manual Material Handling Using Inertial Motion Capture: A Follow-Up Study.

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q4 BIOPHYSICS
Sebastian Skals, Mark de Zee, Michael Skipper Andersen
{"title":"Estimation of Joint Kinetics During Manual Material Handling Using Inertial Motion Capture: A Follow-Up Study.","authors":"Sebastian Skals, Mark de Zee, Michael Skipper Andersen","doi":"10.1115/1.4067103","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Musculoskeletal models based on inertial motion capture (IMC) and ground reaction force (GRF) prediction hold great potential for field-based risk assessment of manual material handling (MMH). However, previous evaluations have identified inaccuracies in the methodology's estimation of spinal forces, while the accuracy of other key outcome variables is currently unclear. This study evaluated knee, shoulder, and L5-S1 joint reaction forces (JRFs) derived from a musculoskeletal model based on inertial motion capture and GRF prediction against a model based on simultaneously collected optical motion capture (OMC) and force plate measurements. Data from 19 healthy subjects performing lifts with various horizontal locations (HLs), deposit heights (DHs), and asymmetry angles (AAs) were analyzed, and the consistency and absolute agreement of the model estimates statistically compared. Despite varying levels of agreement across tasks and variables, considerable absolute differences were identified for the L5-S1 axial compression (AC) (root-mean-square error (RMSE) = 63.0-94.2%BW) and anteroposterior (AP) shear forces (RMSE = 40.9-80.6%BW) as well as the bilateral knee JRFs (RMSE = 78.9-117%BW). Glenohumeral JRFs and vertical GRFs exhibited the highest overall consistency (r = 0.33-0.91, median 0.78) and absolute agreement (RMSE = 7.63-34.9%BW), while the L5-S1 axial compression forces also showed decent consistency (r = 0.04-0.89, median 0.80). The findings generally align with prior evaluations, indicating persistent challenges with the accuracy of key outcome variables. While the modeling framework shows promise, further development of the methodology is encouraged to enhance its applicability in ergonomic evaluations.</p>","PeriodicalId":54871,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Biomechanical Engineering-Transactions of the Asme","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Biomechanical Engineering-Transactions of the Asme","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4067103","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"BIOPHYSICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Musculoskeletal models based on inertial motion capture (IMC) and ground reaction force (GRF) prediction hold great potential for field-based risk assessment of manual material handling (MMH). However, previous evaluations have identified inaccuracies in the methodology's estimation of spinal forces, while the accuracy of other key outcome variables is currently unclear. This study evaluated knee, shoulder, and L5-S1 joint reaction forces (JRFs) derived from a musculoskeletal model based on inertial motion capture and GRF prediction against a model based on simultaneously collected optical motion capture (OMC) and force plate measurements. Data from 19 healthy subjects performing lifts with various horizontal locations (HLs), deposit heights (DHs), and asymmetry angles (AAs) were analyzed, and the consistency and absolute agreement of the model estimates statistically compared. Despite varying levels of agreement across tasks and variables, considerable absolute differences were identified for the L5-S1 axial compression (AC) (root-mean-square error (RMSE) = 63.0-94.2%BW) and anteroposterior (AP) shear forces (RMSE = 40.9-80.6%BW) as well as the bilateral knee JRFs (RMSE = 78.9-117%BW). Glenohumeral JRFs and vertical GRFs exhibited the highest overall consistency (r = 0.33-0.91, median 0.78) and absolute agreement (RMSE = 7.63-34.9%BW), while the L5-S1 axial compression forces also showed decent consistency (r = 0.04-0.89, median 0.80). The findings generally align with prior evaluations, indicating persistent challenges with the accuracy of key outcome variables. While the modeling framework shows promise, further development of the methodology is encouraged to enhance its applicability in ergonomic evaluations.

利用惯性运动捕捉技术估算手动物料搬运过程中的关节动力学:一项后续研究。
基于惯性运动捕捉和地面反作用力(GRF)预测的肌肉骨骼模型在基于现场的人工材料搬运风险评估中具有巨大的潜力。然而,之前的评估发现,该方法对脊柱力的估算存在误差,而其他关键结果变量的准确性目前尚不清楚。本研究对膝关节、肩关节和 L5-S1 关节反作用力(JRFs)进行了评估,该反作用力来自一个基于惯性运动捕捉和 GRF 预测的肌肉骨骼模型,与一个基于同时采集的光学运动捕捉和测力板测量的模型进行了对比。我们分析了 19 名健康受试者在不同水平位置、存放高度和不对称角度下进行举重的数据,并对模型估计值的一致性和绝对一致性进行了统计比较。尽管在不同任务和变量之间存在不同程度的一致性,但在 L5-S1 轴向压缩力(RMSE = 63.0-94.2%BW)和前胸剪切力(RMSE = 40.9-80.6%BW)以及双侧膝关节 JRFs(RMSE = 78.9-117%BW)方面发现了相当大的绝对差异。盂肱关节 JRFs 和垂直 GRFs 显示出最高的整体一致性(r = 0.33-0.91,中位数为 0.78)和绝对一致性(RMSE = 7.63-34.9%BW),而 L5-S1 轴向压缩力也显示出良好的一致性(r = 0.04-0.89,中位数为 0.80)。研究结果与之前的评估结果基本一致,表明关键结果变量的准确性一直面临挑战。虽然建模框架显示了前景,但仍鼓励进一步开发该方法,以提高其在人体工程学评估中的适用性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
5.90%
发文量
169
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Artificial Organs and Prostheses; Bioinstrumentation and Measurements; Bioheat Transfer; Biomaterials; Biomechanics; Bioprocess Engineering; Cellular Mechanics; Design and Control of Biological Systems; Physiological Systems.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信