D'Amico M, Ferrigno G
Centro di Bioingegneria, Fondazione Pro Juventute, IRCCS, Milano, Italy.
Med Biol Eng Comput. 1992 Mar;30(2):193-204. doi: 10.1007/BF02446130.
When analysing and evaluating human motion, two strictly interconnected problems arise: the data smoothing and the determination of velocities and accelerations from displacement data. Differentiating procedures magnify the noise superimposed on the useful kinematic data. A smoothing procedure is thus required to reduce the measurement noise before the differentiation can be carried out. In the paper two techniques for derivative assessment are presented, tested and compared. One of these is the procedure known as one of the best automatic smoothing and differentiating techniques: generalised cross validatory spline smoothing and differentiation (GCVC). The other, which has recently been presented, features an automatic model-based bandwidth-selection procedure (LAMBDA). The procedures have been tested with signals presented by other authors and available in the literature, by test signals acquired using the ELITE motion analyser and by synthetic data. The results show better or similar performance of LAMBDA compared with GCVC. In the cases in which the natural conditions at the signal boundaries are not met GCVC gives bad results (especially on the third derivative) whereas LAMBDA is not affected at all. Moreover, analysis time is dramatically lower for LAMBDA.
在分析和评估人体运动时,会出现两个紧密相连的问题:数据平滑以及根据位移数据确定速度和加速度。微分过程会放大叠加在有用运动学数据上的噪声。因此,在进行微分之前需要一个平滑过程来降低测量噪声。本文介绍、测试并比较了两种用于导数评估的技术。其中一种是被认为是最佳自动平滑和微分技术之一的过程:广义交叉验证样条平滑和微分(GCVC)。另一种是最近提出的,具有基于自动模型的带宽选择过程(LAMBDA)。这些过程已通过其他作者给出并在文献中可用的信号、使用ELITE运动分析仪采集的测试信号以及合成数据进行了测试。结果表明,与GCVC相比,LAMBDA具有更好或相似的性能。在信号边界不满足自然条件的情况下,GCVC会给出糟糕的结果(尤其是在三阶导数上),而LAMBDA则完全不受影响。此外,LAMBDA的分析时间显著更短。