Bruno Paul, Barden John
Faculty of Kinesiology and Health Studies, University of Regina, Regina, SK, Canada.
Faculty of Kinesiology and Health Studies, University of Regina, Regina, SK, Canada.
J Biomech. 2015 Nov 5;48(14):3876-82. doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2015.09.031. Epub 2015 Oct 3.
When using motion capture to measure pelvic motion, situations in which the anterior superior iliac spines (ASISs) or posterior superior iliac spines (PSISs) are obscured from view require that an alternative technical marker set be used to track the pelvis. The current study evaluated the accuracy and temporal similarity (i.e., cross-correlation) of two alternative pelvic models compared to the standard pelvic model during gait. The first alternative model used markers placed on the ASISs and iliac crests (ASIS-IC), while the second alternative model used markers placed on the PSISs and iliac crests (PSIS-IC). Both alternative models demonstrated an acceptable degree of accuracy in the sagittal, frontal, and transverse planes (root-mean-square error <1.4° in all planes). The temporal similarity between both alternative models and the standard model was "very strong" in the frontal and transverse planes. In the sagittal plane, the temporal similarity was also "very strong" for the PSIS-IC model and "strong" for the ASIS-IC model. Although statistically significant differences were found between the two alternative models for some of the variables, the practical significance of these findings is generally questionable considering the magnitude of the differences. These results suggest that both alternative models are suitable alternatives to the standard pelvic model for tracking pelvic motion. However, consideration would need to be paid to the spatial resolution and temporal resolution requirements, as well as the specific plane(s) of movement that are deemed most important, for a particular investigation if one of these alternative models is to be used.
在使用动作捕捉技术测量骨盆运动时,如果髂前上棘(ASIS)或髂后上棘(PSIS)被遮挡而无法看到,就需要使用另一组技术标记来追踪骨盆。本研究评估了两种替代骨盆模型与标准骨盆模型在步态过程中的准确性和时间相似性(即互相关)。第一种替代模型使用放置在ASIS和髂嵴上的标记(ASIS-IC),而第二种替代模型使用放置在PSIS和髂嵴上的标记(PSIS-IC)。两种替代模型在矢状面、额状面和横断面上均表现出可接受的准确性(所有平面的均方根误差<1.4°)。两种替代模型与标准模型在额状面和横断面上的时间相似性“非常强”。在矢状面,PSIS-IC模型的时间相似性“非常强”,而ASIS-IC模型的时间相似性“较强”。尽管在某些变量上两种替代模型之间存在统计学上的显著差异,但考虑到差异的大小,这些发现的实际意义通常值得怀疑。这些结果表明,两种替代模型都是追踪骨盆运动的标准骨盆模型的合适替代方案。然而,如果要使用这些替代模型中的一种,对于特定研究,需要考虑空间分辨率和时间分辨率要求,以及被认为最重要的特定运动平面。