Cargando…
A Comparison of Inertial Measurement Unit and Motion Capture Measurements of Tibiofemoral Kinematics during Simulated Pivot Landings
Injuries are often associated with rapid body segment movements. We compared Certus motion capture and APDM inertial measurement unit (IMU) measurements of tibiofemoral angle and angular velocity changes during simulated pivot landings (i.e., ~70 ms peak) of nine cadaver knees dissected free of skin...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9230913/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35746217 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s22124433 |
_version_ | 1784735196335046656 |
---|---|
author | Baek, So Young Ajdaroski, Mirel Shahshahani, Payam Mirshams Beaulieu, Mélanie L. Esquivel, Amanda O. Ashton-Miller, James A. |
author_facet | Baek, So Young Ajdaroski, Mirel Shahshahani, Payam Mirshams Beaulieu, Mélanie L. Esquivel, Amanda O. Ashton-Miller, James A. |
author_sort | Baek, So Young |
collection | PubMed |
description | Injuries are often associated with rapid body segment movements. We compared Certus motion capture and APDM inertial measurement unit (IMU) measurements of tibiofemoral angle and angular velocity changes during simulated pivot landings (i.e., ~70 ms peak) of nine cadaver knees dissected free of skin, subcutaneous fat, and muscle. Data from a total of 852 trials were compared using the Bland–Altman limits of agreement (LoAs): the Certus system was considered the gold standard measure for the angle change measurements, whereas the IMU was considered the gold standard for angular velocity changes. The results show that, although the mean peak IMU knee joint angle changes were slightly underestimated (2.1° for flexion, 0.2° for internal rotation, and 3.0° for valgus), the LoAs were large, ranging from 35.9% to 49.8%. In the case of the angular velocity changes, Certus had acceptable accuracy in the sagittal plane, with LoAs of ±54.9°/s and ±32.5°/s for the tibia and femur. For these rapid motions, we conclude that, even in the absence of soft tissues, the IMUs could not reliably measure these peak 3D knee angle changes; Certus measurements of peak tibiofemoral angular velocity changes depended on both the magnitude of the velocity and the plane of measurement. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9230913 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-92309132022-06-25 A Comparison of Inertial Measurement Unit and Motion Capture Measurements of Tibiofemoral Kinematics during Simulated Pivot Landings Baek, So Young Ajdaroski, Mirel Shahshahani, Payam Mirshams Beaulieu, Mélanie L. Esquivel, Amanda O. Ashton-Miller, James A. Sensors (Basel) Article Injuries are often associated with rapid body segment movements. We compared Certus motion capture and APDM inertial measurement unit (IMU) measurements of tibiofemoral angle and angular velocity changes during simulated pivot landings (i.e., ~70 ms peak) of nine cadaver knees dissected free of skin, subcutaneous fat, and muscle. Data from a total of 852 trials were compared using the Bland–Altman limits of agreement (LoAs): the Certus system was considered the gold standard measure for the angle change measurements, whereas the IMU was considered the gold standard for angular velocity changes. The results show that, although the mean peak IMU knee joint angle changes were slightly underestimated (2.1° for flexion, 0.2° for internal rotation, and 3.0° for valgus), the LoAs were large, ranging from 35.9% to 49.8%. In the case of the angular velocity changes, Certus had acceptable accuracy in the sagittal plane, with LoAs of ±54.9°/s and ±32.5°/s for the tibia and femur. For these rapid motions, we conclude that, even in the absence of soft tissues, the IMUs could not reliably measure these peak 3D knee angle changes; Certus measurements of peak tibiofemoral angular velocity changes depended on both the magnitude of the velocity and the plane of measurement. MDPI 2022-06-11 /pmc/articles/PMC9230913/ /pubmed/35746217 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s22124433 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 Baek, So Young Ajdaroski, Mirel Shahshahani, Payam Mirshams Beaulieu, Mélanie L. Esquivel, Amanda O. Ashton-Miller, James A. A Comparison of Inertial Measurement Unit and Motion Capture Measurements of Tibiofemoral Kinematics during Simulated Pivot Landings |
title | A Comparison of Inertial Measurement Unit and Motion Capture Measurements of Tibiofemoral Kinematics during Simulated Pivot Landings |
title_full | A Comparison of Inertial Measurement Unit and Motion Capture Measurements of Tibiofemoral Kinematics during Simulated Pivot Landings |
title_fullStr | A Comparison of Inertial Measurement Unit and Motion Capture Measurements of Tibiofemoral Kinematics during Simulated Pivot Landings |
title_full_unstemmed | A Comparison of Inertial Measurement Unit and Motion Capture Measurements of Tibiofemoral Kinematics during Simulated Pivot Landings |
title_short | A Comparison of Inertial Measurement Unit and Motion Capture Measurements of Tibiofemoral Kinematics during Simulated Pivot Landings |
title_sort | comparison of inertial measurement unit and motion capture measurements of tibiofemoral kinematics during simulated pivot landings |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9230913/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35746217 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s22124433 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT baeksoyoung acomparisonofinertialmeasurementunitandmotioncapturemeasurementsoftibiofemoralkinematicsduringsimulatedpivotlandings AT ajdaroskimirel acomparisonofinertialmeasurementunitandmotioncapturemeasurementsoftibiofemoralkinematicsduringsimulatedpivotlandings AT shahshahanipayammirshams acomparisonofinertialmeasurementunitandmotioncapturemeasurementsoftibiofemoralkinematicsduringsimulatedpivotlandings AT beaulieumelaniel acomparisonofinertialmeasurementunitandmotioncapturemeasurementsoftibiofemoralkinematicsduringsimulatedpivotlandings AT esquivelamandao acomparisonofinertialmeasurementunitandmotioncapturemeasurementsoftibiofemoralkinematicsduringsimulatedpivotlandings AT ashtonmillerjamesa acomparisonofinertialmeasurementunitandmotioncapturemeasurementsoftibiofemoralkinematicsduringsimulatedpivotlandings AT baeksoyoung comparisonofinertialmeasurementunitandmotioncapturemeasurementsoftibiofemoralkinematicsduringsimulatedpivotlandings AT ajdaroskimirel comparisonofinertialmeasurementunitandmotioncapturemeasurementsoftibiofemoralkinematicsduringsimulatedpivotlandings AT shahshahanipayammirshams comparisonofinertialmeasurementunitandmotioncapturemeasurementsoftibiofemoralkinematicsduringsimulatedpivotlandings AT beaulieumelaniel comparisonofinertialmeasurementunitandmotioncapturemeasurementsoftibiofemoralkinematicsduringsimulatedpivotlandings AT esquivelamandao comparisonofinertialmeasurementunitandmotioncapturemeasurementsoftibiofemoralkinematicsduringsimulatedpivotlandings AT ashtonmillerjamesa comparisonofinertialmeasurementunitandmotioncapturemeasurementsoftibiofemoralkinematicsduringsimulatedpivotlandings |