Literature DB >> 27139005

Joint kinematic calculation based on clinical direct kinematic versus inverse kinematic gait models.

H Kainz1, L Modenese2, D G Lloyd3, S Maine4, H P J Walsh4, C P Carty5.   

Abstract

Most clinical gait laboratories use the conventional gait analysis model. This model uses a computational method called Direct Kinematics (DK) to calculate joint kinematics. In contrast, musculoskeletal modelling approaches use Inverse Kinematics (IK) to obtain joint angles. IK allows additional analysis (e.g. muscle-tendon length estimates), which may provide valuable information for clinical decision-making in people with movement disorders. The twofold aims of the current study were: (1) to compare joint kinematics obtained by a clinical DK model (Vicon Plug-in-Gait) with those produced by a widely used IK model (available with the OpenSim distribution), and (2) to evaluate the difference in joint kinematics that can be solely attributed to the different computational methods (DK versus IK), anatomical models and marker sets by using MRI based models. Eight children with cerebral palsy were recruited and presented for gait and MRI data collection sessions. Differences in joint kinematics up to 13° were found between the Plug-in-Gait and the gait 2392 OpenSim model. The majority of these differences (94.4%) were attributed to differences in the anatomical models, which included different anatomical segment frames and joint constraints. Different computational methods (DK versus IK) were responsible for only 2.7% of the differences. We recommend using the same anatomical model for kinematic and musculoskeletal analysis to ensure consistency between the obtained joint angles and musculoskeletal estimates.
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Gait analysis; Inverse Kinematics; OpenSim; Plug-in-Gait; Subject specific model

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27139005     DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2016.03.052

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Biomech        ISSN: 0021-9290            Impact factor:   2.712


  15 in total

1.  Comparison of kinematic parameters of children gait obtained by inverse and direct models.

Authors:  Jurgita Ziziene; Kristina Daunoraviciene; Giedre Juskeniene; Juozas Raistenskis
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-06-24       Impact factor: 3.752

2.  In-vivo quantification of dynamic hip joint center errors and soft tissue artifact.

Authors:  Niccolo M Fiorentino; Penny R Atkins; Michael J Kutschke; K Bo Foreman; Andrew E Anderson
Journal:  Gait Posture       Date:  2016-09-11       Impact factor: 2.840

3.  PREDICT-CP: study protocol of implementation of comprehensive surveillance to predict outcomes for school-aged children with cerebral palsy.

Authors:  Roslyn N Boyd; Peter Sw Davies; Jenny Ziviani; Stewart Trost; Lee Barber; Robert Ware; Stephen Rose; Koa Whittingham; Leanne Sakzewski; Kristie Bell; Christopher Carty; Steven Obst; Katherine Benfer; Sarah Reedman; Priya Edwards; Megan Kentish; Lisa Copeland; Kelly Weir; Camilla Davenport; Denise Brooks; Alan Coulthard; Rebecca Pelekanos; Andrea Guzzetta; Simona Fiori; Meredith Wynter; Christine Finn; Andrea Burgess; Kym Morris; John Walsh; Owen Lloyd; Jennifer A Whitty; Paul A Scuffham
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2017-07-12       Impact factor: 2.692

4.  The effect of subject measurement error on joint kinematics in the conventional gait model: Insights from the open-source pyCGM tool using high performance computing methods.

Authors:  Mathew Schwartz; Philippe C Dixon
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-01-02       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 5.  Bioinspired Technologies to Connect Musculoskeletal Mechanobiology to the Person for Training and Rehabilitation.

Authors:  Claudio Pizzolato; David G Lloyd; Rod S Barrett; Jill L Cook; Ming H Zheng; Thor F Besier; David J Saxby
Journal:  Front Comput Neurosci       Date:  2017-10-18       Impact factor: 2.380

6.  Estimation of Vertical Ground Reaction Forces and Sagittal Knee Kinematics During Running Using Three Inertial Sensors.

Authors:  Frank J Wouda; Matteo Giuberti; Giovanni Bellusci; Erik Maartens; Jasper Reenalda; Bert-Jan F van Beijnum; Peter H Veltink
Journal:  Front Physiol       Date:  2018-03-22       Impact factor: 4.566

7.  The impact of thigh and shank marker quantity on lower extremity kinematics using a constrained model.

Authors:  Annelise A Slater; Todd J Hullfish; Josh R Baxter
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2018-11-13       Impact factor: 2.362

8.  Comparison of a Deep Learning-Based Pose Estimation System to Marker-Based and Kinect Systems in Exergaming for Balance Training.

Authors:  Elise Klæbo Vonstad; Xiaomeng Su; Beatrix Vereijken; Kerstin Bach; Jan Harald Nilsen
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2020-12-04       Impact factor: 3.576

9.  Plantar load transfer in children: a descriptive study with two pathological case studies.

Authors:  Alexis Brierty; Christopher P Carty; Claudia Giacomozzi; Teresa Phillips; Henry P J Walsh; David Bade; Sean Horan
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2021-06-07       Impact factor: 2.362

10.  Validity, Test-Retest Reliability and Long-Term Stability of Magnetometer Free Inertial Sensor Based 3D Joint Kinematics.

Authors:  Wolfgang Teufl; Markus Miezal; Bertram Taetz; Michael Fröhlich; Gabriele Bleser
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2018-06-21       Impact factor: 3.576

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.