Assessment of reproducibility of thigh marker ranking during walking and landing tasks

Monnet, Tony; Thouze, A.; Pain, Matthew T.G.; Begon, Mickaël

doi:10.1016/j.medengphy.2012.05.006

Cited by 12 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For this purpose, the artifacts caused by skin movements must be kept as low as possible for high dynamic movements. For this purpose, tracking markers should preferably be attached to areas where skin movement artefacts are as small as possible [10].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of six different marker sets to analyze knee kinematics and kinetics during landings

Kerkhoff

Wagner

Peikenkamp

2020

Current Directions in Biomedical Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In motion analysis marker sets or protocols are mostly developed for gait analysis and it has been shown that the marker set used affects the results of gait analysis. These marker sets are also used for the analysis of high dynamic sports movements. Single-leg landings are a common tool to investigate functional knee stability and further to predict injury risks where frontal plane motion and loading seem to play an important role. Until now, it is unknown how the marker sets affect the motion analysis results of such high dynamic movements. Therefore, the aim of the study was to compare six different marker sets. Three-dimensional motion and force data of single-leg landings in 12 healthy subjects were collected. Six different marker sets consisting of up to 26 markers and two clusters were simultaneously attached to the subjects’ lower limb and pelvis. The results show that particularly, the knee joint angles in the frontal and transverse plane showed the greatest differences between marker sets with in part contrary joint angle directions and great differences in angle magnitude. In addition, the amount of joint load was dependent on the marker set used for analysis. These results show that one must be careful when interpreting and comparing data of the frontal or transverse plane during high dynamic movements.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of six different marker sets to analyze knee kinematics and kinetics during landings

Kerkhoff

Wagner

Peikenkamp

2020

Current Directions in Biomedical Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…: not applicable, the movement was not completed because of discomfort. locate the markers (Monnet et al, 2012). Moreover, using fluoroscopy, the axial rotation of the humerus is difficult to measure due to its cylindrical symmetry (Giphart et al, 2012).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A local optimization algorithm was applied to minimize artefact of raw marker trajectories (Monnet et al, 2012). The functional symmetrical center of rotation estimation method (SCoRE) (Ehrig et al, 2006) was used to locate the glenohumeral center of rotation from the first series of arm movements acquired, i.e.…”

Section: Kinematics Reconstructionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Glenohumeral joint kinematics measured by intracortical pins, reflective markers, and computed tomography: A novel technique to assess acromiohumeral distance

Maso

Blache

Raison

et al. 2016

Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…A non-linear least-squares algorithm was applied to minimize the artefacts of raw markers trajectories (Monnet et al, 2012). The glenohumeral centre of rotation was located using the SCoRE algorithm (Ehrig et al, 2006).…”

Section: Data Processingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Glenohumeral translations during range-of-motion movements, activities of daily living, and sports activities in healthy participants

Maso

Raison

Lundberg

et al. 2015

Clinical Biomechanics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

P. et al. (2015) Glenohumeral translations during range-of-motion movements, activities of daily living, and sports activities in healthy participants.. Findings: During range-of-motion movements, maximum upward translation was 7.5 mm (P1) and 4.7 mm (P2). Upward translation during elevations was smaller with the arm internally (3.6 mm (P1) and 2.9 mm (P2)) than neutrally (4.2 mm (P1) and 3.7 mm (P2)) and externally rotated (4.3 mm (P1) and 4.3 mm (P2)). For activities of daily living and sports activities, only anterior translation during reach axilla for P1 and upward translation during ball throwing for P2 were larger than the translation measured during range-ofmotion movements (108% and 114%, respectively).

show abstract

Assessment of reproducibility of thigh marker ranking during walking and landing tasks

Cited by 12 publications

References 30 publications

Comparison of six different marker sets to analyze knee kinematics and kinetics during landings

Comparison of six different marker sets to analyze knee kinematics and kinetics during landings

Glenohumeral joint kinematics measured by intracortical pins, reflective markers, and computed tomography: A novel technique to assess acromiohumeral distance

Glenohumeral translations during range-of-motion movements, activities of daily living, and sports activities in healthy participants

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About