Joint kinematic calculation based on clinical direct kinematic versus inverse kinematic gait models

Kainz, Hans; Modenese, Luca; Lloyd, David G.; Maine, Sheanna; Walsh, Henry P.J.; Carty, Christopher P.

doi:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2016.03.052

Cited by 122 publications

(110 citation statements)

References 72 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

101

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In other words, IK uses different bony landmarks to calculate ankle joint angles depending on the respective MFM, which may consequently generate different motions. 16 It should be noted that the rigid body assumption in all MFMs in the current study may lead to errors, which may be overcome with the use of a deformable foot model in future studies. 31,32 In contrast to the large differences between 2MFM versus 3MFM and 2MFM versus 5MFM, the differences between 3MFM and 5MFM were much smaller, which suggested a greater similarity between them.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…For instance, 2MFM used markers on the calcaneal tuberosity, head of the first metatarsal bone, and head of the fifth metatarsal bone on foot to calculate the ankle kinematics, while the 5MFM used markers on the sustentaculum talus and peroneal tubercle instead of the head of the first metatarsal bone and head of the fifth metatarsal bone. In other words, IK uses different bony landmarks to calculate ankle joint angles depending on the respective MFM, which may consequently generate different motions . It should be noted that the rigid body assumption in all MFMs in the current study may lead to errors, which may be overcome with the use of a deformable foot model in future studies …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…In addition, the previous studies used a direct kinematics approach to assess kinematic differences between foot models. However, an inverse kinematics (IK) approach is becoming more common, especially within paradigms that use musculoskeletal modeling …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, an inverse kinematics (IK) approach is becoming more common, especially within paradigms that use musculoskeletal modeling. 16 It would be of significant concern if ankle kinematics, and ligament and muscle strains, differ between MFM with a different number of segments because the answers to, and interpretations of, clinical research questions could be adversely affected by an ankle-foot model based on its number of segments. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare ankle joint kinematics and ligaments and muscle strains estimated from a biomechanical model that uses a different number of foot segments within a MFM during a simple movement task.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Number of Segments Within Musculoskeletal Foot Models Influences Ankle Kinematics and Strains of Ligaments and Muscles

Kim

Kipp

2019

Journal Orthopaedic Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Multi‐segment foot models (MFMs) are becoming a common tool in musculoskeletal research on the ankle‐foot complex. The purpose of this study was to compare ankle joint kinematics as well as ligament and muscle strains that result from MFM with a different number of segments during vertical hopping. Ten participants were recruited and performed double‐limb vertical hops. Marker positions and ground reaction forces were collected. Two‐segment (2MFM), three‐segment (3MFM), and five‐segment MFM (5MFM) were used to calculate ankle kinematics and the strains of the anterior talofibular and calcaneofibular ligaments and of the soleus and gastrocnemius muscles. Ranges of motion and peak strains were analyzed with Kruskal–Wallis and post hoc tests, whereas the time‐series of the ankle kinematics and ligament and muscle strains were analyzed with statistical parametric mapping. There were significant main effects for MFM in the talocrural joint range of motion and peak strains of ligaments and muscles. In addition, there were significant main effects for MFM in time‐series data of the talocrural joint angle as well as for ligament and muscle strains. In all cases, the post hoc analyses showed that the 2MFM consistently overestimated the range of motion and tissue strains compared to the 3MFM and 5MFM, while 3MFM and 5MFM did not differ from each other in the most variables. This study showed that the number of segments in MFM significantly affects the biomechanical estimates of joint kinematics and tissue strains during hopping. Clinical significance: MFM that combine all foot structures beyond the talus into one segment likely overestimate ankle joint biomechanics. © 2019 Orthopaedic Research Society. Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Orthop Res 37:2231–2240, 2019

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Number of Segments Within Musculoskeletal Foot Models Influences Ankle Kinematics and Strains of Ligaments and Muscles

Kim

Kipp

2019

Journal Orthopaedic Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Many biomechanical models assume fewer degrees-of-freedom at the hip joint [20]. Thus, an additional analysis was performed that limited hip motions to rotations only (3 DOF).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

In-vivo quantification of dynamic hip joint center errors and soft tissue artifact

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hip joint center (HJC) measurement error can adversely affect predictions from biomechanical models. Soft tissue artifact (STA) may exacerbate HJC errors during dynamic motions. We quantified HJC error and the effect of STA in 11 young, asymptomatic adults during six activities. Subjects were imaged simultaneously with reflective skin markers (SM) and dual fluoroscopy (DF), an x-ray based technique with submillimeter accuracy that does not suffer from STA. Five HJCs were defined from locations of SM using three predictive (i.e., based on regression) and two functional methods; these calculations were repeated using the DF solutions. Hip joint center motion was analyzed during six degrees-of-freedom (default) and three degrees-of-freedom hip joint kinematics. The position of the DF-measured femoral head center (FHC), served as the reference to calculate HJC error. The effect of STA was quantified with mean absolute deviation. HJC errors were (mean±SD) 16.6±8.4 mm and 11.7±11.0 mm using SM and DF solutions, respectively. HJC errors from SM measurements were all significantly different from the FHC in at least one anatomical direction during multiple activities. The mean absolute deviation of SM-based HJCs was 2.8±0.7 mm, which was greater than that for the FHC (0.6±0.1 mm), suggesting that STA caused approximately 2.2 mm of spurious HJC motion. Constraining the hip joint to three degrees-of-freedom led to approximately 3.1 mm of spurious HJC motion. Our results indicate that STA-induced motion of the HJC contributes to the overall error, but inaccuracies inherent with predictive and functional methods appear to be a larger source of error.

show abstract

Toward modeling locomotion using electromyography‐informed 3D models: application to cerebral palsy

Sartori

Fernandez

Modenese

et al. 2016

WIREs Mechanisms of Disease

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Joint kinematic calculation based on clinical direct kinematic versus inverse kinematic gait models

Cited by 122 publications

References 72 publications

Number of Segments Within Musculoskeletal Foot Models Influences Ankle Kinematics and Strains of Ligaments and Muscles

Number of Segments Within Musculoskeletal Foot Models Influences Ankle Kinematics and Strains of Ligaments and Muscles

In-vivo quantification of dynamic hip joint center errors and soft tissue artifact

Toward modeling locomotion using electromyography‐informed 3D models: application to cerebral palsy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About