| Literature DB >> 29515649 |
Zakia Hussain1, Norsinnira Zainul Azlan1, Arif Zuhairi Bin Yusof1.
Abstract
The focus of this research is to analyse both human hand motion and force, during eating, with respect to differing food characteristics and cutlery (including a fork and a spoon). A glove consisting of bend and force sensors has been used to capture the motion and contact force exerted by fingers during different eating activities. The Pearson correlation coefficient has been used to show that a significant linear relationship exists between the bending motion of the fingers and the forces exerted during eating. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and independent samples t-tests are performed to establish whether the motion and force exerted by the fingers while eating is influenced by the different food characteristics and cutlery. The middle finger motion showed the least positive correlation with index fingertip and thumb-tip force, irrespective of the food characteristics and cutlery used. The ANOVA and t-test results revealed that bending motion of the index finger and thumb varies with respect to differing food characteristics and the type of cutlery used (fork/spoon), whereas the bending motion of the middle finger remains unaffected. Additionally, the contact forces exerted by the thumb tip and index fingertip remain unaffected with respect to differing food types and cutlery used.Entities:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29515649 PMCID: PMC5817289 DOI: 10.1155/2018/8567648
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Appl Bionics Biomech ISSN: 1176-2322 Impact factor: 1.781
Highlights of the previous contributions to human motion analysis.
| Number | Authors | Objective | Focus of study | Data acquisition method | Results/findings | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ju and Liu [ | To correlate the muscle signals with contact forces and finger trajectories & motion recognition using muscle signals | Human hand motion analysis with multisensory information | EMG sensor, force sensor & DataGlove | Strong correlations between muscle signals, contact forces, and finger trajectories. | Ten in-hand manipulations like holding & lifting a dumbbell |
|
| ||||||
| 2 | Gopura et al. [ | To analyse upper-limb muscle activities during basic upper-limb motion, to design power-assist robotic exoskeleton systems | Human upper-limb muscle activities during daily upper-limb motions | EMG electrodes, VICON motion capture system | Relationships between the upper limb motions & activity levels of main muscles have been established | Basic motions and the selected daily activities of upper-limb |
|
| ||||||
| 3 | Tang et al. [ | To classify multiple hand gestures using three different methods | Hand motion classification using a multichannel surface sEMG sensor | sEMG sensors | Experimental results showed that the success rate for the identification of all the 11 gestures is significantly high | 11 hand gestures |
|
| ||||||
| 4 | Cabibihan et al. [ | To analyse the gesture, the amount of force applied on regions of the hand, and the angular motion of finger joints | Human patting gesture analysis for robotic social touching | CyberGlove II | The sensitive regions on the hand while performing pat have been identified | Human patting gesture |
|
| ||||||
| 5 | Rosen et al. [ | To study the kinematics and the dynamics of the human arm during daily activities | The human arm kinematics and dynamics during daily activities | VICON motion capture system & reflective markers | The results indicated that the various joints' kinematics and dynamics change significantly based on the nature of the task | 24 ADL |
|
| ||||||
| 6 | Ah et al. [ | To evaluate motor control abilities between the groups of people with mild and moderate arm impairments | 3D kinematic motion analysis of door handling task in people with mild and moderate stroke | VICON motion capture system & reflective markers | Comparisons have been drawn between healthy, mild & moderate stroke patients | Door handling task |
|
| ||||||
| 7 | Aprile et al. [ | To analyse, using motion analysis, the qualitative and quantitative upper limb motor strategies in stroke patients | Kinematic analysis of the upper limb motor strategies in stroke | Smart motion capture optoelectronic system | Comparisons have been drawn between stroke & healthy control group while reaching out for the glass to drink | Drinking task |
|
| ||||||
| 8 | Adnan et al. [ | To develop a low-cost DataGlove, able to recognize the different finger activities | Measurement of the flexible bending force of the index and middle fingers for virtual interaction | Low-cost DataGlove by using the flexible bending sensor | The DataGlove developed can measure several human degrees of freedom (DoFs) | Sign language translation (letters A, B, C, D, F & K and number 8) |
|
| ||||||
| 9 | Adnan et al. [ | To find the correlations between the forces of finger phalanges | Accurate measurement of force by the force sensor for intermediate and proximal phalanges of index finger | Flexiforce pressure sensors | An analytical mathematical model and ANOVA has been established to predict the force induced at the flexible force sensor and the human finger of low-cost DataGlove | Any finger gripping activity |
Figure 1(a) The location of bend sensors on the thumb, middle finger, and index finger. (b) The location of force sensors on the thumb and the index finger.
Figure 2(a) The index finger angle, (b) the middle finger angle, and (c) the thumb angle, measured by the bend sensors.
Figure 3Hardware setup of the bend and force sensors for hand motion analysis.
Figure 4Four main events identified during each eating activity: (a) origin, (b) event A, (c) event B, (d) Event C.
Figure 5(a) Thumb motion trajectories, (b) index finger motion trajectories, and (c) middle finger motion trajectories obtained from the bend sensor for five different eating activities.
Figure 6(a) Three trials of thumb-tip force and (b) index fingertip force captured by the force sensor during vegetable eating activity.
Figure 7(a) Thumb-tip force and (b) index fingertip force recorded by the force sensor during five different eating activities.
Averaged Pearson coefficient of bending finger angles and force exerted by fingers.
| Rice (spoon) | Cereal & Milk (spoon) | Soup (spoon) | Vegetable (fork) | Noodle (fork) | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Index | Middle | Thumb | Index | Middle | Thumb | Index | Middle | Thumb | Index | Middle | Thumb | Index | Middle | Thumb | |
| FINDEX |
| 0.87 | 0.78 | 0.89 | 0.84 |
| 0.90 | 0.87 |
|
| 0.81 | 0.74 | 0.85 | 0.73 |
|
| FTHUMB |
| 0.84 | 0.81 | 0.89 | 0.83 |
| 0.90 | 0.89 |
|
| 0.83 | 0.80 | 0.86 | 0.72 |
|
Analysis of variance summary table.
| Sum of squares | df | Mean square | Sig./ | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BENDTHMB | Between groups | 893.33 | 4 | 223.33 | 0.023 |
| Within groups | 26855.55 | 345 | 77.84 | ||
| Total | 27748.88 | 349 | |||
|
| |||||
| BENDINDX | Between groups | 5765.47 | 4 | 1441.37 | 0.074 |
| Within groups | 230984.22 | 345 | 669.52 | ||
| Total | 236749.69 | 349 | |||
|
| |||||
| BENDMID | Between groups | 3236.77 | 4 | 809.19 | 0.609 |
| Within groups | 413100.47 | 345 | 1197.39 | ||
| Total | 416337.24 | 349 | |||
A least significant difference post hoc test using SPSS software package.
| Dependent variable | ( | ( | Mean difference ( | Sig. |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BENDTHMB | ||||
| 1 | Cereal | Rice | −2.66 | 0.075 |
| Veg | 2.33 | 0.119 | ||
| Noodle | −0.60 | 0.687 | ||
| Soup | −0.61 | 0.684 | ||
| 2 | Rice | Cereal | 2.66 | 0.075 |
| Veg | 4.99∗ | 0.001 | ||
| Noodle | 2.06 | 0.168 | ||
| Soup | 2.06 | 0.169 | ||
| 3 | Veg | Cereal | −2.33 | 0.119 |
| Rice | −4.99∗ | 0.001 | ||
| Noodle | −2.93 | 0.050 | ||
| Soup | −2.94∗ | 0.050 | ||
| 4 | Noodle | Cereal | 0.60 | 0.687 |
| Rice | −2.06 | 0.168 | ||
| Veg | 2.93 | 0.050 | ||
| Soup | 0.00 | 0.998 | ||
| 5 | Soup | Cereal | 0.61 | 0.684 |
| Rice | −2.06 | 0.169 | ||
| Veg | 2.94∗ | 0.050 | ||
| Noodle | 0.00 | 0.998 | ||
|
| ||||
| BENDINDX | ||||
| 6 | Cereal | Rice | −3.29 | 0.452 |
| Veg | −3.33 | 0.447 | ||
| Noodle | −9.97∗ | 0.023 | ||
| Soup | 1.96 | 0.655 | ||
| 7 | Rice | Cereal | 3.29 | 0.452 |
| Veg | −0.04 | 0.993 | ||
| Noodle | −6.68 | 0.127 | ||
| Soup | 5.25 | 0.231 | ||
| 8 | Veg | Cereal | 3.33 | 0.447 |
| Rice | 0.04 | 0.993 | ||
| Noodle | −6.65 | 0.129 | ||
| Soup | 5.28 | 0.228 | ||
| 9 | Noodle | Cereal | 9.97∗ | 0.023 |
| Rice | 6.68 | 0.127 | ||
| Veg | 6.65 | 0.129 | ||
| Soup | 11.93∗ | 0.007 | ||
| 10 | Soup | Cereal | −1.96 | 0.655 |
| Rice | −5.25 | 0.231 | ||
| Veg | −5.28 | 0.228 | ||
| Noodle | −11.93∗ | 0.007 | ||
∗The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
ANOVA summary table.
| Sum of squares | df | Mean square | Sig./ | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FINDX | Between groups | 0.30 | 4 | 0.08 | 0.892 |
| Within groups | 94.05 | 345 | 0.27 | ||
| Total | 94.35 | 349 | |||
|
| |||||
| FTHMB | Between groups | 3.54 | 4 | 0.88 | 0.273 |
| Within groups | 236.09 | 345 | 0.68 | ||
| Total | 239.63 | 349 | |||
Group statistics showing the mean and standard deviation (SD) for the bending motion data analysis.
| Cutlery | Mean | Std. deviation | |
|---|---|---|---|
| BENDINDX | Fork | 41.39 | 28.29 |
| Spoon | 35.19 | 24.19 | |
|
| |||
| BENDMID | Fork | 58.12 | 33.62 |
| Spoon | 56.19 | 35.20 | |
|
| |||
| BENDTHMB | Fork | 33.02 | 8.81 |
| Spoon | 34.97 | 8.92 | |
Independent samples t-test results for the bending motion data analysis.
| Levene's test for equality of variances |
|
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Sig. |
| df | Sig. (2-tailed) | ||
| BENDINDX | Equal variances assumed | 13.38 | 0.000 | 2.20 | 348 | 0.029 |
| Equal variances not assumed | 2.13 | 265.58 | 0.034 | |||
|
| ||||||
| BENDMID | Equal variances assumed | 0.22 | 0.643 | 0.51 | 348 | 0.609 |
| Equal variances not assumed | 0.52 | 307.26 | 0.606 | |||
|
| ||||||
| BENDTHMB | Equal variances assumed | 0.11 | 0.742 | −2.02 | 348 | 0.045 |
| Equal variances not assumed | −2.02 | 300.69 | 0.044 | |||
Group statistics showing the Mean and SD for the contact force data analysis.
| Cutlery | Mean | Std. deviation | Std. error mean | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FINDX | Fork | 0.90 | 0.46 | 0.04 |
| Spoon | 0.94 | 0.55 | 0.04 | |
|
| ||||
| FTHMB | Fork | 0.74 | 0.90 | 0.08 |
| Spoon | 0.60 | 0.77 | 0.05 | |
Independent samples t-test results for the contact force data analysis.
| Levene's test for equality of variances |
|
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F | Sig. |
| df | Sig. (2-tailed) | ||
| FINDX | Equal variances assumed | 9.60 | 0.002 | −0.66 | 348.00 | 0.509 |
| Equal variances not assumed | −0.68 | 330.37 | 0.494 | |||
|
| ||||||
| FTHMB | Equal variances assumed | 5.74 | 0.017 | 1.62 | 348.00 | 0.106 |
| Equal variances not assumed | 1.57 | 265.59 | 0.118 | |||