Anatomically-based skeletal coordinate systems for use with impact biomechanics data intended for anthropomorphic test device development

Slykhouse, Laura; Zaseck, Lauren Wood; Miller, Craig S.; Humm, John; Alai, Aaron; Kang, Yun‐Seok; Dooley, Chris; Sherman, Donald; Bigler, Brian; Reed, Matthew P.; Rupp, Jonathan D.

doi:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2019.05.032

Cited by 11 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…TA B L E 1 Body, head, and constituent tissue masses for each animal, estimated from the CT models Observational studies of human TBI exposure events using video reconstruction methods and/or wearable sensors typically report head kinematics relative to the CoM of the head, which is usually estimated to lie at some standardized distance anterior to the auditory meatus and superior to the Frankfort plane, on the sagittal midline (Slykhouse et al, 2019;Yoganandan et al, 2009). Therefore, describing head kinematics with reference to the CoM of the head and/or brain during exposure events for sheep TBI models, together with application of established acceleration-brain mass scaling relationships (Browne et al, 2011;Holbourn, 1943;Ommaya et al, 1967), and in the context of other model limitations, may allow better comparison with direction-specific human TBI exposures.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Similar CT modeling methods were previously employed and the outcomes compared to physical measures of CoM for four human cadaveric heads, with no significant difference between the methods detected (Roush, 2010). While most other studies evaluating human head CoM have done so using only physical measurements (as reviewed by (Yoganandan et al, 2009)), some have used CT modeling methods similar to ours (Loyd et al, 2010) and the practice is described briefly elsewhere (Slykhouse et al, 2019). Only skeletally mature Merino wethers were investigated in this study; the head CoM may vary for other sheep species, and by age and sex.…”

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Center of mass and anatomical coordinate system definition for sheep head kinematics, with application to ovine models of traumatic brain injury

Quarrington

Magarey

Jones

2022

J of Neuroscience Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pathological outcomes of traumatic brain injury (TBI), including diffuse axonal injury, are influenced by the direction, magnitude, and duration of head acceleration during the injury exposure. Ovine models have been used to study injury mechanics and pathological outcomes of TBI. To accurately describe the kinematics of the head during an injury exposure, and better facilitate comparison with human head kinematics, anatomical coordinate systems (ACS) with an origin at the head or brain center of mass (CoM), and axes that align with the ovine Frankfort plane equivalent, are required. The aim of this study was to determine the mass properties of the sheep head and brain, and define an ACS virtual for the head and brain, using anatomical landmarks on the skull with the aforementioned origins and orientation. Three-dimensional models of 10 merino sheep heads were constructed from computed tomography images, and the coordinates of the head and brain CoMs, relative to a previously reported sheep head coordinate system (ACS physical ), were determined using the Hounsfield unit-mass density relationship. The ACS physical origin was 34.8 ± 3.1 mm posterosuperior of the head CoM and 43.7 ± 1.7 anteroinferior of the brain CoM. Prominent internal anatomical landmarks were then used to define a new ACS (ACS virtual ) with axes aligned with the Frankfort plane equivalent and an origin 10.4 ± 3.2 mm from the head CoM. The CoM and ACS virtual defined in this study will increase the potential for comparison of head kinematics between ovine models and humans, in the context of TBI.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Center of mass and anatomical coordinate system definition for sheep head kinematics, with application to ovine models of traumatic brain injury

Quarrington

Magarey

Jones

2022

J of Neuroscience Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To measure head-neck angular displacement, reflective markers (S.1) were placed on the participant head, torso, and the apparatus (see “ Bending Apparatus Design and Assessment ” and “ Axial Rotation Apparatus Design and Assessment ” sections), and the locations of the markers were tracked with a thirteen-camera 3D motion capture system (Vantage, Vicon Motion System, UK). To define a cartesian coordinate system aligned with the Frankfort plane, markers were placed on the left and right tragion (L_T, R_T) and orbit inferior margins (L_IO, R_IO) [ 17 ] (S.2). To mitigate against marker occlusion during motion trials, the Frankfort plane marker locations were described in coordinate systems defined by a 5-marker head cluster (prone positions), or by markers placed on L_IO, L_T, and the left mastoid process (L_MP, side-lying positions).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of Apparatus and Protocols to Measure Human Passive Neck Stiffness and Range of Motion

Liu,

Quarrington,

Sandoz

et al. 2024

Ann Biomed Eng

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Understanding of human neck stiffness and range of motion (ROM) with minimal neck muscle activation (“passive”) is important for clinical and bioengineering applications. The aim of this study was to develop, implement, and evaluate the reliability of methods for assessing passive-lying stiffness and ROM, in six head-neck rotation directions. Six participants completed two assessment sessions. To perform passive-lying tests, the participant’s head and torso were strapped to a bending (flexion, extension, lateral bending) or a rotation (axial rotation) apparatus, and clinical bed, respectively. The head and neck were manually rotated by the researcher to the participant’s maximum ROM, to assess passive-lying stiffness. Participant-initiated (“active”) head ROM was also assessed in the apparatus, and seated. Various measures of apparatus functionality were assessed. ROM was similar for all assessment configurations in each motion direction except flexion. In each direction, passive stiffness generally increased throughout neck rotation. Within-session reliability for stiffness (ICC > 0.656) and ROM (ICC > 0.872) was acceptable, but between-session reliability was low for some motion directions, probably due to intrinsic participant factors, participant-apparatus interaction, and the relatively low participant number. Moment-angle corridors from both assessment sessions were similar, suggesting that with greater sample size, these methods may be suitable for estimating population-level corridors.

show abstract

“…By using both the Vicon system and FaroArm it was possible to measure the motion of each segment. The equations required to define the local coordinate systems can be found in Slykhouse et al (2019) 25 . The coordinate transformation between FaroArm, the optical markers, and the bones has been previously described in detail by Shaw et al (2009) 26 .…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of occipital-atlas stabilization in the upper cervical spine kinematics: an in vitro study

Hidalgo-García

Lorente

López-de-Celis

et al. 2021

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study compares upper cervical spine range of motion (ROM) in the three cardinal planes before and after occiput-atlas (C0–C1) stabilization. After the dissection of the superficial structures to the alar ligament and the fixation of C2, ten cryopreserved upper cervical columns were manually mobilized in the three cardinal planes of movement without and with a screw stabilization of C0–C1. Upper cervical ROM and mobilization force were measured using the Vicon motion capture system and a load cell respectively. The ROM without C0–C1 stabilization was 19.8° ± 5.2° in flexion and 14.3° ± 7.7° in extension. With stabilization, the ROM was 11.5° ± 4.3° and 6.6° ± 3.5°, respectively. The ROM without C0–C1 stabilization was 4.7° ± 2.3° in right lateral flexion and 5.6° ± 3.2° in left lateral flexion. With stabilization, the ROM was 2.3° ± 1.4° and 2.3° ± 1.2°, respectively. The ROM without C0–C1 stabilization was 33.9° ± 6.7° in right rotation and 28.0° ± 6.9° in left rotation. With stabilization, the ROM was 28.5° ± 7.0° and 23.7° ± 8.5° respectively. Stabilization of C0–C1 reduced the upper cervical ROM by 46.9% in the sagittal plane, 55.3% in the frontal plane, and 15.6% in the transverse plane. Also, the resistance to movement during upper cervical mobilization increased following C0–C1 stabilization.

show abstract

Anatomically-based skeletal coordinate systems for use with impact biomechanics data intended for anthropomorphic test device development

Cited by 11 publications

References 16 publications

Center of mass and anatomical coordinate system definition for sheep head kinematics, with application to ovine models of traumatic brain injury

Center of mass and anatomical coordinate system definition for sheep head kinematics, with application to ovine models of traumatic brain injury

Evaluation of Apparatus and Protocols to Measure Human Passive Neck Stiffness and Range of Motion

Effects of occipital-atlas stabilization in the upper cervical spine kinematics: an in vitro study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About