Inertial measurement units furnish accurate trunk trajectory reconstruction of the sit-to-stand manoeuvre in healthy subjects

Giansanti, Daniele; Maccioni, Giovanni; Benvenuti, Francesco; Macellari, Velio

doi:10.1007/s11517-007-0224-8

Cited by 46 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…IMUs are used in aerospace, marine and automotive fields and are now increasingly used for human motion tracking in several clinical applications. [29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43] We used IMUs from Xsens Technologies (XSens MTx, www.xsens.com). Under controlled conditions of motion using a Gimbal table, the Xsens MTx IMUs have demonstrated an absolute mean precision of 0.3° to 1.0° depending on the axis of rotation under slow conditions of motion when compared to an optical motion tracking system (Optotrak).…”

Section: Main Outcome: Measures Of Cervical Spine Motion (Figure 2)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Cervical Spine Motion during Transfer and Stabilization Techniques

Shrier¹,

Boissy²,

Lebel³

et al. 2014

Prehospital Emergency Care

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: To compare paramedics' ability to minimize cervical spine motion during patient transfer onto a vacuum mattress with two stabilization techniques (Head Squeeze vs. Trap Squeeze) and two transfer methods (log roll with one assistant (LR 2 ) vs. 3 assistants (LR 4 )).Methods: We used a cross-over design to minimize bias. Each lead paramedic performed 10 LR 2 transfers and 10 LR 4 transfers . For each of the 10 LR 2 and 10 LR 4 transfers, the lead paramedic stabilized the cervical spine using the Head Squeeze technique five times and the Trap Squeeze technique five times. We randomized the order of the stabilization techniques and LR 2 / LR 4 across lead paramedics to avoid a practice or fatigue effect with repeated trials. We measured relative cervical spine motion between the head and trunk using Inertial Measurement Units placed on the forehead and sternum.Results: On average, total motion was 3.9° less with three assistants compared to one assistant (p=0.0002), and 2.8° less with the Trap Squeeze compared to the Head Squeeze (p=0.002). There was no interaction between the transfer method and stabilization technique. When examining specific motions in the six directions, the Trap Squeeze generally produced less lateral flexion and rotation motion but allowed more extension. Examining within paramedic differences, some paramedics were clearly more proficient with the Trap Squeeze technique and others were clearly more proficient with the Head Squeeze technique.Conclusion: Paramedics performing a log roll with three assistants created less motion compared to a log roll with only one assistant, and using the Trap Squeeze stabilization technique resulted in less motion than the Head Squeeze technique. However, the clinical relevance of the magnitude remains unclear. However, large individual differences suggest future paramedic training should incorporate both best evidence practice as well as recognition that there may be individual differences between paramedics.

show abstract

Section: Main Outcome: Measures Of Cervical Spine Motion (Figure 2)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Cervical Spine Motion during Transfer and Stabilization Techniques

Shrier¹,

Boissy²,

Lebel³

et al. 2014

Prehospital Emergency Care

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, patient-related annotation is not fully reliable because of perceptual bias and, in recent years, a number of studies on automatic systems to evaluate motor fluctuations of PD patients have been developed [3]. The most common approach is leveraging sensing technology to automatically evaluate the performance of specific motor tasks, such as Sit-to-Stand (S2S) [4], [5], gait [6], [7], tremor [8], and Leg Agility (LA) [9]- [14]. The basic idea is to develop a system able to get an evaluation of the motor status of a patient as close as possible to the evaluation of neurologists when they apply semi-quantitative evaluation scales, such as the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) [15].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Automatic UPDRS Evaluation in the Sit-to-Stand Task of Parkinsonians: Kinematic Analysis and Comparative Outlook on the Leg Agility Task

Giuberti

Ferrari

Contin

et al. 2015

IEEE J. Biomed. Health Inform.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-In this work, we first characterize the Sit-to-Stand (S2S) task, which contributes to the evaluation of the degree of severity of the Parkinson's Disease (PD), through kinematic features, which are then linked to the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) scores. We propose to use a single body-worn wireless inertial node placed on the chest of a patient. The experimental investigation is carried out considering 24 PD patients, comparing the obtained results directly with the kinematic characterization of the Leg Agility (LA) task performed by the same set of patients. We show that (i) the S2S and LA tasks are rather unrelated and (ii) the UPDRS distributions (for both S2S and LA tasks) across the patients have a direct impact on the observed system performance.

show abstract

“…Electronic devices with sensors (usually accelerometers, gyroscopes, and magnetometers), IMU s measure the orientation of an object or a body segment. (For a more detailed explanation of the principles behind IMU s, see Luinge and Veltink, 12 Giansanti et al, 13 and Giansanti and Maccioni. 14 ) In brief, IMUs generally use a 9-axis sensor module, which contains 3 orthogonally mounted triads of angular rate sensors, accelerometers, and magnetometers.…”

Section: Outcome Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can a Rescuer or Simulated Patient Accurately Assess Motion During Cervical Spine Stabilization Practice Sessions?

Shrier

Boissy

Brière

et al. 2012

Journal of Athletic Training

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context: Health care providers must be prepared to manage all potential spine injuries as if they are unstable. Therefore, most sport teams devote resources to training for sideline cervical spine (C-spine) emergencies.Objective: To determine (1) how accurately rescuers and simulated patients can assess motion during C-spine stabilization practice and (2) whether providing performance feedback to rescuers influences their choice of stabilization technique.Design: Crossover study. Setting: Training studio. Patients or Other Participants: Athletic trainers, athletic therapists, and physiotherapists experienced at managing suspected C-spine injuries.Intervention(s): Twelve lead rescuers (at the patient's head) performed both the head-squeeze and trap-squeeze C-spine stabilization maneuvers during 4 test scenarios: lift-and-slide and log-roll placement on a spine board and confused patient trying to sit up or rotate the head. Main Outcome Measure(s):Interrater reliability between rescuer and simulated patient quality scores for subjective evaluation of C-spine stabilization during trials (O=best, 10 = worst), correlation between rescuers' quality scores and objective measures of motion with inertial measurement units, and frequency of change in preference for the head-squeeze versus trap-squeeze maneuver.Results: Although the weighted K value for interrater reliability was acceptable (0.71-0.74), scores varied by 2 points or more between rescuers and simulated patients for approximately 10% to 15% of trials. Rescuers' scores correlated with objective measures, but variability was large: 38% of trials scored as 0 or 1 by the rescuer involved more than 10°of motion in at least 1 direction. Feedback did not affect the preference for the lift-and-slide placement. For the log-roll placement, 6 of 8 participants who preferred the head squeeze at baseline preferred the trap squeeze after feedback. For the confused patient, 5 of 5 participants initially preferred the head squeeze but preferred the trap squeeze after feedback.Conclusions: Rescuers and simulated patients could not adequately assess performance during C-spine stabilization maneuvers without objective measures. Providing immediate feedback in this context is a promising tool for changing behavior preferences and improving training.Key Words: head squeeze, trap squeeze, spine board placement, head motion, inertial measurements, self-reports, training, feedback, spine injuries, spine immobilization, neck injuries Key Points• Properly stabilizing an injured cervical spine is an essential skill for sports medicine professionals.• In the absence of objective measures, neither lead rescuers nor simulated patients were able to accurately characterize the performance of cervical spine stabilization maneuvers.• Immediate, objective feedback during training may provide rescuers with practical suggestions for improving their skills in cervical stabilization.

show abstract

Inertial measurement units furnish accurate trunk trajectory reconstruction of the sit-to-stand manoeuvre in healthy subjects

Cited by 46 publications

References 33 publications

Cervical Spine Motion during Transfer and Stabilization Techniques

Cervical Spine Motion during Transfer and Stabilization Techniques

Automatic UPDRS Evaluation in the Sit-to-Stand Task of Parkinsonians: Kinematic Analysis and Comparative Outlook on the Leg Agility Task

Can a Rescuer or Simulated Patient Accurately Assess Motion During Cervical Spine Stabilization Practice Sessions?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About