The reliability of the ELEPAP clinical protocol for the 3D kinematic evaluation of upper limb function

Vanezis, Athanasios; Robinson, Mark A.; Darras, N.

doi:10.1016/j.gaitpost.2014.11.007

Cited by 18 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Precision scores for the REF method were necessarily higher than for the MIMU-based joint angle estimation since operator variability was not considered (markers remained constant for all the sessions). The values of CMCwp, m , and r indexes for the REF method were slightly higher than those presented by Vanezis et al [ 43 ], especially for the wrist joint angles. These higher values can be explained by the higher range of motion (RoM) of the movements performed.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 74%

“…These higher values can be explained by the higher range of motion (RoM) of the movements performed. Indeed, such statistical indexes, especially CMCip and CMCwp, should be used with great caution for signals with a very low RoM (e.g., wrist movements during wheel) and should not be dissociated from the RoM factor [ 43 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The results showed that the global precision of MIMU-based upper limb joint angles was in the range 5°–10°, under extended human variability conditions (subject and operator). Most of the values of index r were lower than 2.0, highlighting that the procedures had a high level of precision [ 43 ], except for the TECH calibration for the shoulder joint. It cannot be excluded that the fixed operator order A-B-A-C-A might play a role in the general low inter-session variability.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Upper Limb Kinematics Using Inertial and Magnetic Sensors: Comparison of Sensor-to-Segment Calibrations

Bouvier

Duprey

Claudon

et al. 2015

Sensors

110

107

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Magneto-Inertial Measurement Unit sensors (MIMU) display high potential for the quantitative evaluation of upper limb kinematics, as they allow monitoring ambulatory measurements. The sensor-to-segment calibration step, consisting of establishing the relation between MIMU sensors and human segments, plays an important role in the global accuracy of joint angles. The aim of this study was to compare sensor-to-segment calibrations for the MIMU-based estimation of wrist, elbow, and shoulder joint angles, by examining trueness (“close to the reference”) and precision (reproducibility) validity criteria. Ten subjects performed five sessions with three different operators. Three classes of calibrations were studied: segment axes equal to technical MIMU axes (TECH), segment axes generated during a static pose (STATIC), and those generated during functional movements (FUNCT). The calibrations were compared during the maximal uniaxial movements of each joint, plus an extra multi-joint movement. Generally, joint angles presented good trueness and very good precision in the range 5°–10°. Only small discrepancy between calibrations was highlighted, with the exception of a few cases. The very good overall accuracy (trueness and precision) of MIMU-based joint angle data seems to be more dependent on the level of rigor of the experimental procedure (operator training) than on the choice of calibration itself.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 74%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Upper Limb Kinematics Using Inertial and Magnetic Sensors: Comparison of Sensor-to-Segment Calibrations

Bouvier

Duprey

Claudon

et al. 2015

Sensors

110

107

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The tasks had specific movement sequences that were standardized, repeatable, of short duration, and consistently performed by individual participants. Other tasks used in literature have shown low within-participant variability [ 12 , 13 , 35 ], however typically using more constrained tasks not as representative of real-world object interactions. Within-participant variability is an important factor to assess as, for some clinical populations, increased variability in motor performance is a key indicator of poor motor skill, and may indicate the adoption of various strategies for accomplishing a task rather than converging on one strategy.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Characterization of normative hand movements during two functional upper limb tasks

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundDexterous hand function is crucial for completing activities of daily living (ADLs), which typically require precise hand-object interactions. Kinematic analyses of hand trajectory, hand velocity, and grip aperture provide valuable mechanistic insights into task performance, but there is a need for standardized tasks representative of ADLs that are amenable to motion capture and show consistent performance in non-disabled individuals. Our objective was to develop two standardized functional upper limb tasks and to quantitatively characterize the kinematics of normative hand movement.MethodsTwenty non-disabled participants were recruited to perform two tasks: the Pasta Box Task and Cup Transfer Task. A 12-camera motion capture system was used to collect kinematic data from which hand movement and grip aperture measures were calculated. Measures reported for reach-grasp and transport-release segments were hand distance travelled, hand trajectory variability, movement time, peak and percent-to-peak hand velocity, number of movement units, peak and percent-to-peak grip aperture, and percent-to-peak hand deceleration. A between-session repeatability analysis was conducted on 10 participants.ResultsMovement times were longer for transport-release compared to reach-grasp for every movement. Hand and grip aperture measures had low variability, with 55 out of 63 measures showing good repeatability (ICC > 0.75). Cross-body movements in the Pasta Box Task had longer movement times and reduced percent-to-peak hand velocity values. The Cup Transfer Task showed decoupling of peak grip aperture and peak hand deceleration for all movements. Movements requiring the clearing of an obstacle while transporting an object displayed a double velocity peak and typically a longer deceleration phase.DiscussionNormative hand kinematics for two standardized functional tasks challenging various aspects of hand-object interactions important for ADLs showed excellent repeatability. The consistency in normative task performance across a variety of task demands shows promise as a potential outcome assessment for populations with upper limb impairment.

show abstract

“…Gait analysis and upper limb measurements using 3D motion capture systems and sEMG are frequently performed in the general population of CP and several recommendations and protocols are available for measurements of kinematics, including Vicon clinical manager or Plug in gait full body model (Vicon UK), American Society of Biomechanics recommendations for upper extremity motion analysis [86], University of Western Australia's (UWA) upper limb model [87], upper limb model proposed by Rab et al [88], upper limb three-dimensional movement analysis (UL-3DMA) [89], ELEPAP clinical protocol [90][91][92] and Reach & Grasp Cycle [93]. These recommendations and protocols were (partly) used in several of the reviewed articles [38-41, 53, 55-57, 60, 61].…”

Section: Movement Functions (Control Of Voluntary Movement Involuntamentioning

confidence: 99%

Instrumented assessment of motor function in dyskinetic cerebral palsy: a systematic review

Haberfehlner

Goudriaan

Bonouvrié

et al. 2020

J NeuroEngineering Rehabil

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: In this systematic review we investigate which instrumented measurements are available to assess motor impairments, related activity limitations and participation restrictions in children and young adults with dyskinetic cerebral palsy. We aim to classify these instrumented measurements using the categories of the international classification of functioning, disability and health for children and youth (ICF-CY) and provide an overview of the outcome parameters. Methods: A systematic literature search was performed in November 2019. We electronically searched Pubmed, Embase and Scopus databases. Search blocks included (a) cerebral palsy, (b) athetosis, dystonia and/or dyskinesia, (c) age 2-24 years and (d) instrumented measurements (using keywords such as biomechanics, sensors, smartphone, and robot). Results: Our search yielded 4537 articles. After inspection of titles and abstracts, a full text of 245 of those articles were included and assessed for further eligibility. A total of 49 articles met our inclusion criteria. A broad spectrum of instruments and technologies are used to assess motor function in dyskinetic cerebral palsy, with the majority using 3D motion capture and surface electromyography. Only for a small number of instruments methodological quality was assessed, with only one study showing an adequate assessment of test-retest reliability. The majority of studies was at ICF-CY function and structure level and assessed control of voluntary movement (29 of 49) mainly in the upper extremity, followed by assessment of involuntary movements (15 of 49), muscle tone/motor reflex (6 of 49), gait pattern (5 of 49) and muscle power (2 of 49). At ICF-CY level of activities and participation hand and arm use (9 of 49), fine hand use (5 of 49), lifting and carrying objects (3 of 49), maintaining a body position (2 of 49), walking (1 of 49) and moving around using equipment (1 of 49) was assessed. Only a few methods are potentially suitable outside the clinical environment (e.g. inertial sensors, accelerometers). Conclusion: Although the current review shows the potential of several instrumented methods to be used as objective outcome measures in dyskinetic cerebral palsy, their methodological quality is still unknown. Future development should focus on evaluating clinimetrics, including validating against clinical meaningfulness. New technological developments should aim for measurements that can be applied outside the laboratory.

show abstract

The reliability of the ELEPAP clinical protocol for the 3D kinematic evaluation of upper limb function

Cited by 18 publications

References 29 publications

Upper Limb Kinematics Using Inertial and Magnetic Sensors: Comparison of Sensor-to-Segment Calibrations

Upper Limb Kinematics Using Inertial and Magnetic Sensors: Comparison of Sensor-to-Segment Calibrations

Characterization of normative hand movements during two functional upper limb tasks

Instrumented assessment of motor function in dyskinetic cerebral palsy: a systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About