估算动态功能任务中肩胛骨运动学的两种方法的重复性

IF 2.4 3区 医学 Q3 BIOPHYSICS
Angelica E. Lang
{"title":"估算动态功能任务中肩胛骨运动学的两种方法的重复性","authors":"Angelica E. Lang","doi":"10.1016/j.jbiomech.2024.112334","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Best practices for scapular motion tracking are still being determined. The repeatability of different scapular kinematic procedures needs to be evaluated. The purpose of this study was to assess the test-retest reliability of two scapular kinematic procedures: double calibration with AMC (D-AMC) and individualized linear modelling (LM). Ten healthy participants had their upper body movement tracked with optical motion capture in two identical sessions. Five scapular calibration poses were performed, and seven dynamic functional tasks were tested. Scapular angles were calculated from both procedures (D-AMC vs LM). The D-AMC approach uses two poses (neutral and maximum elevation) and tracks the scapula with a rigid cluster, while the LM approach predicts scapular positioning from humeral angles based on equations built from the calibration pose data. Angle waveforms and repeatability outcomes were compared. Internal and upward rotation angle waveforms were significantly different (p &lt; 0.05) between kinematic procedures for some tasks, with maximum mean differences up to 17.3° and 23.2°, respectively. Overall, repeatability outcomes were similar between procedures, but the LM approach was slightly better for tilt and the D-AMC approach was notably improved for upward rotation in certain tasks. For example, minimal detectable changes during the Forward Transfer ranged from 6.9° to 11.9° for the D-AMC and 8.9° to 25.3° for the LM. Discrepancies between procedures may be a function of the calibration poses chosen. Additional calibration poses may improve the comparisons between procedures.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":15168,"journal":{"name":"Journal of biomechanics","volume":"176 ","pages":"Article 112334"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021929024004123/pdfft?md5=db359fa6f3f2d4ac7ce570c39baf45ce&pid=1-s2.0-S0021929024004123-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Repeatability of two methods for estimating scapular kinematics during dynamic functional tasks\",\"authors\":\"Angelica E. Lang\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jbiomech.2024.112334\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Best practices for scapular motion tracking are still being determined. The repeatability of different scapular kinematic procedures needs to be evaluated. The purpose of this study was to assess the test-retest reliability of two scapular kinematic procedures: double calibration with AMC (D-AMC) and individualized linear modelling (LM). Ten healthy participants had their upper body movement tracked with optical motion capture in two identical sessions. Five scapular calibration poses were performed, and seven dynamic functional tasks were tested. Scapular angles were calculated from both procedures (D-AMC vs LM). The D-AMC approach uses two poses (neutral and maximum elevation) and tracks the scapula with a rigid cluster, while the LM approach predicts scapular positioning from humeral angles based on equations built from the calibration pose data. Angle waveforms and repeatability outcomes were compared. Internal and upward rotation angle waveforms were significantly different (p &lt; 0.05) between kinematic procedures for some tasks, with maximum mean differences up to 17.3° and 23.2°, respectively. Overall, repeatability outcomes were similar between procedures, but the LM approach was slightly better for tilt and the D-AMC approach was notably improved for upward rotation in certain tasks. For example, minimal detectable changes during the Forward Transfer ranged from 6.9° to 11.9° for the D-AMC and 8.9° to 25.3° for the LM. Discrepancies between procedures may be a function of the calibration poses chosen. Additional calibration poses may improve the comparisons between procedures.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15168,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of biomechanics\",\"volume\":\"176 \",\"pages\":\"Article 112334\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021929024004123/pdfft?md5=db359fa6f3f2d4ac7ce570c39baf45ce&pid=1-s2.0-S0021929024004123-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of biomechanics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021929024004123\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"BIOPHYSICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of biomechanics","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021929024004123","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BIOPHYSICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

肩胛运动跟踪的最佳实践仍在确定之中。需要对不同肩胛运动学程序的重复性进行评估。本研究旨在评估两种肩胛骨运动学程序的重复测试可靠性:AMC 双校准(D-AMC)和个性化线性建模(LM)。十名健康参与者在两次相同的训练中使用光学运动捕捉对他们的上半身运动进行了跟踪。进行了五次肩胛骨校准姿势,并测试了七项动态功能任务。两种方法(D-AMC 与 LM)都计算出了肩胛角。D-AMC 方法使用两个姿势(中立和最大仰角),并用刚性集群跟踪肩胛骨,而 LM 方法则根据校准姿势数据建立的方程,从肱骨角度预测肩胛骨定位。对角度波形和重复性结果进行了比较。在某些任务中,不同运动学程序的内旋和上旋角度波形有显著差异(p < 0.05),最大平均差异分别高达 17.3° 和 23.2°。总体而言,不同程序之间的重复性结果相似,但在某些任务中,LM 方法在倾斜方面略胜一筹,D-AMC 方法在向上旋转方面有明显改善。例如,在 "前向转移 "过程中,D-AMC方法可检测到的最小变化范围为6.9°至11.9°,LM方法为8.9°至25.3°。程序之间的差异可能与所选的校准姿势有关。额外的校准姿势可能会改善程序之间的比较。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Repeatability of two methods for estimating scapular kinematics during dynamic functional tasks

Best practices for scapular motion tracking are still being determined. The repeatability of different scapular kinematic procedures needs to be evaluated. The purpose of this study was to assess the test-retest reliability of two scapular kinematic procedures: double calibration with AMC (D-AMC) and individualized linear modelling (LM). Ten healthy participants had their upper body movement tracked with optical motion capture in two identical sessions. Five scapular calibration poses were performed, and seven dynamic functional tasks were tested. Scapular angles were calculated from both procedures (D-AMC vs LM). The D-AMC approach uses two poses (neutral and maximum elevation) and tracks the scapula with a rigid cluster, while the LM approach predicts scapular positioning from humeral angles based on equations built from the calibration pose data. Angle waveforms and repeatability outcomes were compared. Internal and upward rotation angle waveforms were significantly different (p < 0.05) between kinematic procedures for some tasks, with maximum mean differences up to 17.3° and 23.2°, respectively. Overall, repeatability outcomes were similar between procedures, but the LM approach was slightly better for tilt and the D-AMC approach was notably improved for upward rotation in certain tasks. For example, minimal detectable changes during the Forward Transfer ranged from 6.9° to 11.9° for the D-AMC and 8.9° to 25.3° for the LM. Discrepancies between procedures may be a function of the calibration poses chosen. Additional calibration poses may improve the comparisons between procedures.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of biomechanics
Journal of biomechanics 生物-工程:生物医学
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
4.20%
发文量
345
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Biomechanics publishes reports of original and substantial findings using the principles of mechanics to explore biological problems. Analytical, as well as experimental papers may be submitted, and the journal accepts original articles, surveys and perspective articles (usually by Editorial invitation only), book reviews and letters to the Editor. The criteria for acceptance of manuscripts include excellence, novelty, significance, clarity, conciseness and interest to the readership. Papers published in the journal may cover a wide range of topics in biomechanics, including, but not limited to: -Fundamental Topics - Biomechanics of the musculoskeletal, cardiovascular, and respiratory systems, mechanics of hard and soft tissues, biofluid mechanics, mechanics of prostheses and implant-tissue interfaces, mechanics of cells. -Cardiovascular and Respiratory Biomechanics - Mechanics of blood-flow, air-flow, mechanics of the soft tissues, flow-tissue or flow-prosthesis interactions. -Cell Biomechanics - Biomechanic analyses of cells, membranes and sub-cellular structures; the relationship of the mechanical environment to cell and tissue response. -Dental Biomechanics - Design and analysis of dental tissues and prostheses, mechanics of chewing. -Functional Tissue Engineering - The role of biomechanical factors in engineered tissue replacements and regenerative medicine. -Injury Biomechanics - Mechanics of impact and trauma, dynamics of man-machine interaction. -Molecular Biomechanics - Mechanical analyses of biomolecules. -Orthopedic Biomechanics - Mechanics of fracture and fracture fixation, mechanics of implants and implant fixation, mechanics of bones and joints, wear of natural and artificial joints. -Rehabilitation Biomechanics - Analyses of gait, mechanics of prosthetics and orthotics. -Sports Biomechanics - Mechanical analyses of sports performance.
×
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