| Literature DB >> 29127653 |
Navid Aslani1, Siamak Noroozi2, Philip Davenport2, Richard Hartley3, Mihai Dupac2, Philip Sewell2.
Abstract
Traditional shoulder range of movement (ROM) measurement tools suffer from inaccuracy or from long experimental setup times. Recently, it has been demonstrated that relatively low-cost wearable inertial measurement unit (IMU) sensors can overcome many of the limitations of traditional motion tracking systems. The aim of this study is to develop and evaluate a single IMU combined with an electromyography (EMG) sensor to monitor the 3D reachable workspace with simultaneous measurement of deltoid muscle activity across the shoulder ROM. Six volunteer subjects with healthy shoulders and one participant with a 'frozen' shoulder were recruited to the study. Arm movement in 3D space was plotted in spherical coordinates while the relative EMG intensity of any arm position is presented graphically. The results showed that there was an average ROM surface area of 27291 ± 538 deg2 among all six healthy individuals and a ROM surface area of 13571 ± 308 deg2 for the subject with frozen shoulder. All three sections of the deltoid show greater EMG activity at higher elevation angles. Using such tools enables individuals, surgeons and physiotherapists to measure the maximum envelope of motion in conjunction with muscle activity in order to provide an objective assessment of shoulder performance in the voluntary 3D workspace. Graphical abstract The aim of this study is to develop and evaluate a single IMU combined with an electromyography (EMG) sensor to monitor the 3D reachable workspace with simultaneous measurement of deltoid muscle activity across the shoulder ROM. The assessment tool consists of an IMU sensor, an EMG sensor, a microcontroller and a Bluetooth module. The assessment tool was attached to subjects arm. Individuals were instructed to move their arms with the elbow fully extended. They were then asked to provide the maximal voluntary elevation envelope of the arm in 3D space in multiple attempts starting from a small movement envelope going to the biggest possible in four consecutive circuits. The results showed that there was an average ROM surface area of 27291 ± 538 deg2 among all six healthy individuals and a ROM surface area of 13571 ± 308 deg2 for the subject with frozen shoulder. All three sections of the deltoid show greater EMG activity at higher elevation angles. Using such tools enables individuals, surgeons and physiotherapists to measure the maximum envelope of motion in conjunction with muscle activity in order to provide an objective assessment of shoulder performance in the voluntary 3D workspace.Entities:
Keywords: Assessment tool; EMG; IMU; Shoulder ROM
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29127653 PMCID: PMC5978833 DOI: 10.1007/s11517-017-1745-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Med Biol Eng Comput ISSN: 0140-0118 Impact factor: 2.602
Fig. 1Deltoid sections and surface electrode placement E0, ground; E1/E2, anterior deltoid; E3/E4, middle deltoid; E5/E6, posterior deltoid
Fig. 2a ROM regions. b Arm spherical coordinates where α represents azimuthal angle and β is the elevation angle
ROM regions in spherical coordinate
| Region | Shoulder motion |
|---|---|
| I | Lower medial elevation |
| II | Higher medial elevation |
| III | Lower lateral elevation |
| IV | Higher lateral elevation |
| V | Lower posterior elevation |
| VI | Higher posterior elevation |
Fig. 3Sample ROM data collection
ROM measurements
| Average surface area (deg2) | Coefficient of variation | Max Flexion | Max Abduction | Max extension | Max | Anterior deltoid EMG (%MVC) | Middle deltoid EMG (%MVC) | Posterior deltoid EMG (%MVC) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| h1 | 27732 | 4.2 | 150 | 153 | 65 | 213 | 72 | 68 | 49 |
| h2 | 26590 | 3.9 | 140 | 131 | 42 | 200 | 45 | 51 | 28 |
| h3 | 26844 | 3.2 | 146 | 137 | 57 | 190 | 52 | 53 | 31 |
| h4 | 27122 | 5 | 162 | 160 | 55 | 190 | 74 | 43 | 34 |
| h5 | 28002 | 8.3 | 150 | 124 | 60 | 205 | 71 | 61 | 49 |
| h6 | 27458 | 5.3 | 148 | 142 | 51 | 203 | 49 | 63 | 29 |
| Healthy Mean | 27291 | 5 | 149 ± 7 | 141 ± 13 | 55 ± 8 | 200 ± 9 | 60 ± 13 | 57 ± 9 | 37 ± 10 |
| i1 | 13571 | 3 | 86 | 64 | NA | NA | 35 | 30 | 15 |
h healthy shoulders, i injured shoulder
Fig. 4ROM and EMG activity comparison. Left, a healthy shoulder (h1); right, the frozen shoulder (i1)