Detail
Article
Online article
FT
Medvik - BMC
  • Something wrong with this record ?

Differences in evaluation methods of trunk sway using different MoCap systems

P. Kutilek, V. Socha, O. Cakrt, Z. Svoboda,

. 2014 ; 16 (2) : 85-94.

Language English Country Poland

Document type Evaluation Study, Journal Article, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

The position of the trunk can be negatively influenced by many diseases. Several methods can be used for identifying defects in balance and coordination as a result of pathology of the musculoskeletal or nervous system. The aim of this article is to examine the relationship between the three methods used for analysis of trunk sway and compare two fundamentally different MoCap systems. We used a camera system and a 3DOF orientation tracker placed on subject's trunk, and measured inclination (roll) and flexion (pitch) during quiet stance. Ten healthy participants in the study were measured with eyes open and closed. The pitch versus roll plots of trunk were formed, and the area of the convex hull, area of confidence ellipse and total length of the trajectory of the pitch versus roll plot were calculated. The statistical analysis was performed and strong correlation between the area of the convex hull and area of the confidence ellipse was found. Also, the results show moderate correlation between the area of the confidence ellipse and total length of the trace, and moderate correlation between the area of the convex hull and total length of the trace. In general, the different MoCap systems show different areas and lengths but lead to the same conclusions. Statistical analysis of the participants with eyes open and eye closed did not show significant difference in the areas and total lengths of the pitch versus roll plots.

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc15014110
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20150423104836.0
007      
ta
008      
150420s2014 pl f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
035    __
$a (PubMed)25087580
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a pl
100    1_
$a Kutilek, Patrik $u Faculty of Biomedical Engineering, Czech Technical University in Prague, Prague, the Czech Republic.
245    10
$a Differences in evaluation methods of trunk sway using different MoCap systems / $c P. Kutilek, V. Socha, O. Cakrt, Z. Svoboda,
520    9_
$a The position of the trunk can be negatively influenced by many diseases. Several methods can be used for identifying defects in balance and coordination as a result of pathology of the musculoskeletal or nervous system. The aim of this article is to examine the relationship between the three methods used for analysis of trunk sway and compare two fundamentally different MoCap systems. We used a camera system and a 3DOF orientation tracker placed on subject's trunk, and measured inclination (roll) and flexion (pitch) during quiet stance. Ten healthy participants in the study were measured with eyes open and closed. The pitch versus roll plots of trunk were formed, and the area of the convex hull, area of confidence ellipse and total length of the trajectory of the pitch versus roll plot were calculated. The statistical analysis was performed and strong correlation between the area of the convex hull and area of the confidence ellipse was found. Also, the results show moderate correlation between the area of the confidence ellipse and total length of the trace, and moderate correlation between the area of the convex hull and total length of the trace. In general, the different MoCap systems show different areas and lengths but lead to the same conclusions. Statistical analysis of the participants with eyes open and eye closed did not show significant difference in the areas and total lengths of the pitch versus roll plots.
650    _2
$a biomechanika $7 D001696
650    _2
$a hodnotící studie jako téma $7 D005069
650    _2
$a oči $7 D005123
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    _2
$a fyziologie $x metody $7 D010827
650    _2
$a postura těla $x fyziologie $7 D011187
650    _2
$a trup $x fyziologie $7 D060726
650    _2
$a mladý dospělý $7 D055815
655    _2
$a hodnotící studie $7 D023362
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
655    _2
$a práce podpořená grantem $7 D013485
700    1_
$a Socha, Vladimir $u Faculty of Biomedical Engineering, Czech Technical University in Prague, Prague, the Czech Republic.
700    1_
$a Cakrt, Ondrej $u Faculty of Biomedical Engineering, Czech Technical University in Prague, Prague, the Czech Republic University Hospital Motol - 2nd Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Prague, Prague, the Czech Republic.
700    1_
$a Svoboda, Zdenek $u Palacky University of Olomouc, Faculty of Physical Culture, the Czech Republic.
773    0_
$w MED00172317 $t Acta of bioengineering and biomechanics Wrocław University of Technology $x 1509-409X $g Roč. 16, č. 2 (2014), s. 85-94
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25087580 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y a $z 0
990    __
$a 20150420 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20150423105136 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 1071691 $s 896988
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC
BMC    __
$a 2014 $b 16 $c 2 $d 85-94 $i 1509-409X $m Acta of Bioengineering and Biomechanics $n Acta Bioeng Biomech $x MED00172317
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20150420

Find record

Citation metrics

Loading data ...

Archiving options

Loading data ...