Cargando…

Comparison of Motion Analysis Systems in Tracking Upper Body Movement of Myoelectric Bypass Prosthesis Users

Current literature lacks a comparative analysis of different motion capture systems for tracking upper limb (UL) movement as individuals perform standard tasks. To better understand the performance of various motion capture systems in quantifying UL movement in the prosthesis user population, this s...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wang, Sophie L., Civillico, Gene, Niswander, Wesley, Kontson, Kimberly L.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9029489/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35458943
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s22082953
_version_ 1784691890863472640
author Wang, Sophie L.
Civillico, Gene
Niswander, Wesley
Kontson, Kimberly L.
author_facet Wang, Sophie L.
Civillico, Gene
Niswander, Wesley
Kontson, Kimberly L.
author_sort Wang, Sophie L.
collection PubMed
description Current literature lacks a comparative analysis of different motion capture systems for tracking upper limb (UL) movement as individuals perform standard tasks. To better understand the performance of various motion capture systems in quantifying UL movement in the prosthesis user population, this study compares joint angles derived from three systems that vary in cost and motion capture mechanisms: a marker-based system (Vicon), an inertial measurement unit system (Xsens), and a markerless system (Kinect). Ten healthy participants (5F/5M; 29.6 ± 7.1 years) were trained with a TouchBionic i-Limb Ultra myoelectric terminal device mounted on a bypass prosthetic device. Participants were simultaneously recorded with all systems as they performed standardized tasks. Root mean square error and bias values for degrees of freedom in the right elbow, shoulder, neck, and torso were calculated. The IMU system yielded more accurate kinematics for shoulder, neck, and torso angles while the markerless system performed better for the elbow angles. By evaluating the ability of each system to capture kinematic changes of simulated upper limb prosthesis users during a variety of standardized tasks, this study provides insight into the advantages and limitations of using different motion capture technologies for upper limb functional assessment.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9029489
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-90294892022-04-23 Comparison of Motion Analysis Systems in Tracking Upper Body Movement of Myoelectric Bypass Prosthesis Users Wang, Sophie L. Civillico, Gene Niswander, Wesley Kontson, Kimberly L. Sensors (Basel) Article Current literature lacks a comparative analysis of different motion capture systems for tracking upper limb (UL) movement as individuals perform standard tasks. To better understand the performance of various motion capture systems in quantifying UL movement in the prosthesis user population, this study compares joint angles derived from three systems that vary in cost and motion capture mechanisms: a marker-based system (Vicon), an inertial measurement unit system (Xsens), and a markerless system (Kinect). Ten healthy participants (5F/5M; 29.6 ± 7.1 years) were trained with a TouchBionic i-Limb Ultra myoelectric terminal device mounted on a bypass prosthetic device. Participants were simultaneously recorded with all systems as they performed standardized tasks. Root mean square error and bias values for degrees of freedom in the right elbow, shoulder, neck, and torso were calculated. The IMU system yielded more accurate kinematics for shoulder, neck, and torso angles while the markerless system performed better for the elbow angles. By evaluating the ability of each system to capture kinematic changes of simulated upper limb prosthesis users during a variety of standardized tasks, this study provides insight into the advantages and limitations of using different motion capture technologies for upper limb functional assessment. MDPI 2022-04-12 /pmc/articles/PMC9029489/ /pubmed/35458943 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s22082953 Text en © 2022 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Wang, Sophie L.
Civillico, Gene
Niswander, Wesley
Kontson, Kimberly L.
Comparison of Motion Analysis Systems in Tracking Upper Body Movement of Myoelectric Bypass Prosthesis Users
title Comparison of Motion Analysis Systems in Tracking Upper Body Movement of Myoelectric Bypass Prosthesis Users
title_full Comparison of Motion Analysis Systems in Tracking Upper Body Movement of Myoelectric Bypass Prosthesis Users
title_fullStr Comparison of Motion Analysis Systems in Tracking Upper Body Movement of Myoelectric Bypass Prosthesis Users
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Motion Analysis Systems in Tracking Upper Body Movement of Myoelectric Bypass Prosthesis Users
title_short Comparison of Motion Analysis Systems in Tracking Upper Body Movement of Myoelectric Bypass Prosthesis Users
title_sort comparison of motion analysis systems in tracking upper body movement of myoelectric bypass prosthesis users
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9029489/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35458943
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s22082953
work_keys_str_mv AT wangsophiel comparisonofmotionanalysissystemsintrackingupperbodymovementofmyoelectricbypassprosthesisusers
AT civillicogene comparisonofmotionanalysissystemsintrackingupperbodymovementofmyoelectricbypassprosthesisusers
AT niswanderwesley comparisonofmotionanalysissystemsintrackingupperbodymovementofmyoelectricbypassprosthesisusers
AT kontsonkimberlyl comparisonofmotionanalysissystemsintrackingupperbodymovementofmyoelectricbypassprosthesisusers