Cargando…

A quantitative evaluation of physical and digital approaches to centre of mass estimation

Centre of mass is a fundamental anatomical and biomechanical parameter. Knowledge of centre of mass is essential to inform studies investigating locomotion and other behaviours, through its implications for segment movements, and on whole body factors such as posture. Previous studies have estimated...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Macaulay, Sophie, Hutchinson, John R., Bates, Karl T.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5643916/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28809445
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/joa.12667
_version_ 1783271629935083520
author Macaulay, Sophie
Hutchinson, John R.
Bates, Karl T.
author_facet Macaulay, Sophie
Hutchinson, John R.
Bates, Karl T.
author_sort Macaulay, Sophie
collection PubMed
description Centre of mass is a fundamental anatomical and biomechanical parameter. Knowledge of centre of mass is essential to inform studies investigating locomotion and other behaviours, through its implications for segment movements, and on whole body factors such as posture. Previous studies have estimated centre of mass position for a range of organisms, using various methodologies. However, few studies assess the accuracy of the methods that they employ, and often provide only brief details on their methodologies. As such, no rigorous, detailed comparisons of accuracy and repeatability within and between methods currently exist. This paper therefore seeks to apply three methods common in the literature (suspension, scales and digital modelling) to three ‘calibration objects’ in the form of bricks, as well as three birds to determine centre of mass position. Application to bricks enables conclusions to be drawn on the absolute accuracy of each method, in addition to comparing these results to assess the relative value of these methodologies. Application to birds provided insights into the logistical challenges of applying these methods to biological specimens. For bricks, we found that, provided appropriate repeats were conducted, the scales method yielded the most accurate predictions of centre of mass (within 1.49 mm), closely followed by digital modelling (within 2.39 mm), with results from suspension being the most distant (within 38.5 mm). Scales and digital methods both also displayed low variability between centre of mass estimates, suggesting they can accurately and consistently predict centre of mass position. Our suspension method resulted not only in high margins of error, but also substantial variability, highlighting problems with this method.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5643916
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-56439162017-10-18 A quantitative evaluation of physical and digital approaches to centre of mass estimation Macaulay, Sophie Hutchinson, John R. Bates, Karl T. J Anat Methods Centre of mass is a fundamental anatomical and biomechanical parameter. Knowledge of centre of mass is essential to inform studies investigating locomotion and other behaviours, through its implications for segment movements, and on whole body factors such as posture. Previous studies have estimated centre of mass position for a range of organisms, using various methodologies. However, few studies assess the accuracy of the methods that they employ, and often provide only brief details on their methodologies. As such, no rigorous, detailed comparisons of accuracy and repeatability within and between methods currently exist. This paper therefore seeks to apply three methods common in the literature (suspension, scales and digital modelling) to three ‘calibration objects’ in the form of bricks, as well as three birds to determine centre of mass position. Application to bricks enables conclusions to be drawn on the absolute accuracy of each method, in addition to comparing these results to assess the relative value of these methodologies. Application to birds provided insights into the logistical challenges of applying these methods to biological specimens. For bricks, we found that, provided appropriate repeats were conducted, the scales method yielded the most accurate predictions of centre of mass (within 1.49 mm), closely followed by digital modelling (within 2.39 mm), with results from suspension being the most distant (within 38.5 mm). Scales and digital methods both also displayed low variability between centre of mass estimates, suggesting they can accurately and consistently predict centre of mass position. Our suspension method resulted not only in high margins of error, but also substantial variability, highlighting problems with this method. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2017-08-15 2017-11 /pmc/articles/PMC5643916/ /pubmed/28809445 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/joa.12667 Text en © 2017 The Authors. Journal of Anatomy published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Anatomical Society This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Methods
Macaulay, Sophie
Hutchinson, John R.
Bates, Karl T.
A quantitative evaluation of physical and digital approaches to centre of mass estimation
title A quantitative evaluation of physical and digital approaches to centre of mass estimation
title_full A quantitative evaluation of physical and digital approaches to centre of mass estimation
title_fullStr A quantitative evaluation of physical and digital approaches to centre of mass estimation
title_full_unstemmed A quantitative evaluation of physical and digital approaches to centre of mass estimation
title_short A quantitative evaluation of physical and digital approaches to centre of mass estimation
title_sort quantitative evaluation of physical and digital approaches to centre of mass estimation
topic Methods
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5643916/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28809445
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/joa.12667
work_keys_str_mv AT macaulaysophie aquantitativeevaluationofphysicalanddigitalapproachestocentreofmassestimation
AT hutchinsonjohnr aquantitativeevaluationofphysicalanddigitalapproachestocentreofmassestimation
AT bateskarlt aquantitativeevaluationofphysicalanddigitalapproachestocentreofmassestimation
AT macaulaysophie quantitativeevaluationofphysicalanddigitalapproachestocentreofmassestimation
AT hutchinsonjohnr quantitativeevaluationofphysicalanddigitalapproachestocentreofmassestimation
AT bateskarlt quantitativeevaluationofphysicalanddigitalapproachestocentreofmassestimation