The Influence of Kinematic Constraints on Model Performance During Inverse Kinematics Analysis of the Thoracolumbar Spine.
The Influence of Kinematic Constraints on Model Performance During Inverse Kinematics Analysis of the Thoracolumbar Spine.
复制标题
DOI：
10.3389/fbioe.2021.688041
复制
发表时间：
2021
影响因子：
5.7
通讯作者：
Anderson DE
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Alemi MM;Burkhart KA;Lynch AC;Allaire BT;Mousavi SJ;Zhang C;Bouxsein ML;Anderson DE
运动分析越来越多地应用于脊柱肌肉骨骼模型，使用运动学约束来估计单个椎间关节的运动，而这些运动无法从皮肤表面标记直接测量。传统上，运动学约束允许每个方向上的单一脊柱自由度 (DOF)，并且很少检查不同的运动学约束如何影响脊柱运动的评估。因此，本研究的目的是评估逆运动学分析中不同运动学约束的性能。我们收集了 7 名健康参与者（4F、3M，年龄 27-67 岁）在屈伸、侧向弯曲和轴向旋转任务期间的运动分析标记数据。对具有 17 个胸腰关节的特定模型（允许 51 个旋转自由度 (51DOF)）和包括七组运动学约束（限制脊柱运动从 3 到 9 个自由度）的相应模型进行了逆向运动学分析。结果包括：(1) 脊柱标记的均方根 (RMS) 误差（测量与模型）； (2) 滞后一自相关系数来评估角运动的平滑度； （3）椎间关节在三个运动方向（FE、LB、AR）的最大运动范围（ROM），以评估其在生理上是否合理； (4) 静态活动度试验中的节段脊柱角度。我们发现，有约束时脊柱标记的 RMS 误差比没有约束时更高 (p < 0.0001)，但并没有显着改善 6DOF 以上的运动学约束。与直接从脊柱标记计算的节段角度相比，具有运动学约束的模型对于屈伸和侧向弯曲具有中等至良好的类内相关系数（ICC），但对于轴向旋转具有弱至中等的 ICC。在运动学约束中添加更多自由度并没有提高匹配分段角度的性能。 4-6DOF 的运动学约束在所有任务中产生相似水平的平滑度，并且与 9DOF 或无约束 (51DOF) 模型相比，平滑度总体上有所提高。我们的结果还表明，使用 4-6DOF 约束预测的最大关节活动度在整个脊柱和所有运动方向上基本上处于生理可接受的范围内。我们得出的结论是，5DOF 的运动学约束可以产生平滑的脊柱运动，具有生理上合理的关节 ROM 和相对较低的标记误差。
Motion analysis is increasingly applied to spine musculoskeletal models using kinematic constraints to estimate individual intervertebral joint movements, which cannot be directly measured from the skin surface markers. Traditionally, kinematic constraints have allowed a single spinal degree of freedom (DOF) in each direction, and there has been little examination of how different kinematic constraints affect evaluations of spine motion. Thus, the objective of this study was to evaluate the performance of different kinematic constraints for inverse kinematics analysis. We collected motion analysis marker data in seven healthy participants (4F, 3M, aged 27–67) during flexion–extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation tasks. Inverse kinematics analyses were performed on subject-specific models with 17 thoracolumbar joints allowing 51 rotational DOF (51DOF) and corresponding models including seven sets of kinematic constraints that limited spine motion from 3 to 9DOF. Outcomes included: (1) root mean square (RMS) error of spine markers (measured vs. model); (2) lag-one autocorrelation coefficients to assess smoothness of angular motions; (3) maximum range of motion (ROM) of intervertebral joints in three directions of motion (FE, LB, AR) to assess whether they are physiologically reasonable; and (4) segmental spine angles in static ROM trials. We found that RMS error of spine markers was higher with constraints than without (p < 0.0001) but did not notably improve kinematic constraints above 6DOF. Compared to segmental angles calculated directly from spine markers, models with kinematic constraints had moderate to good intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for flexion–extension and lateral bending, though weak to moderate ICCs for axial rotation. Adding more DOF to kinematic constraints did not improve performance in matching segmental angles. Kinematic constraints with 4–6DOF produced similar levels of smoothness across all tasks and generally improved smoothness compared to 9DOF or unconstrained (51DOF) models. Our results also revealed that the maximum joint ROMs predicted using 4–6DOF constraints were largely within physiologically acceptable ranges throughout the spine and in all directions of motions. We conclude that a kinematic constraint with 5DOF can produce smooth spine motions with physiologically reasonable joint ROMs and relatively low marker error.
登录
查看更多内容
脊柱侧面畸形对青少年脊柱运动学的影响。
影响因子：
--
作者：
Galvis S;Burton D;Barnds B;Anderson J;Schwend R;Price N;Wilson S;Friis E
通讯作者：
Friis E
影响因子：
2.4
作者：
Gardner-Morse, MG;Stokes, IAF
通讯作者：
Stokes, IAF
影响因子：
3.7
作者：
Crawford, Rebecca;Gizzi, Leonardo;Falla, Deborah
通讯作者：
Falla, Deborah
影响因子：
1.6
作者：
Cheng, Boyle;Castellvi, Anthony E.;Wade, Chip
通讯作者：
Wade, Chip
DOI：
10.1115/1.4030408
发表时间：
2015-08-01
影响因子：
1.7
作者：
Bruno, Alexander G.;Bouxsein, Mary L.;Anderson, Dennis E.
通讯作者：
Anderson, Dennis E.