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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Baek, So Young, Ajdaroski, Mirel, Shahshahani, Payam Mirshams, Beaulieu, Mélanie L., Esquivel, Amanda O., Ashton-Miller, James A.
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