Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Designing for Upper Torso and Arm Anatomy
Published in Karen L. LaBat, Karen S. Ryan, Human Body, 2019
When the orientation of an individual vertebra or group of vertebrae changes within the spine, it can change the spinal curve in several ways. The vertebrae can develop: (a) altered inclinations in the sagittal or coronal plane and/or (b) rotations in a transverse plane. When the inclinations or rotations result from voluntary muscle activity, they contribute to the normal range of motion (ROM) of the neck, torso, and pelvis. Unusual spinal curves develop when vertebral orientations change from causes such as (a) fractures of the vertebral bodies due to osteoporosis, trauma, or other medical conditions, (b) variations in the shape of the vertebrae due to abnormal muscle function or posture during vertebral growth, (c) shifts in the body’s center of gravity due to weight change or weight distribution changes as in pregnancy, and/or (d) muscle imbalances due to neurological disease.
Workspace Design
Published in Stephen Pheasant, Christine M. Haslegrave, Bodyspace, 2018
Stephen Pheasant, Christine M. Haslegrave
The flexibility of the human body is measured in terms of the angular ranges of motion of the joints. Joint movements are the subject of a terminology which is almost standardised (see Figure 4.9). Consider a vertical plane cutting the body down the midline into equal right and left halves. This is called the median (or midsagittal) plane. Any vertical plane parallel to it is called a sagittal plane, and any vertical plane perpendicular to it is called a coronal plane. A horizontal plane through the body is known as a transverse plane.
Introduction
Published in Eric R. Westervelt, Jessy W. Grizzle, Christine Chevallereau, Jun Ho Choi, Benjamin Morris, Feedback Control of Dynamic Bipedal Robot Locomotion, 2018
Eric R. Westervelt, Jessy W. Grizzle, Christine Chevallereau, Jun Ho Choi, Benjamin Morris
The sagittal plane is the longitudinal plane that divides the body into right and left sections. The frontal plane is the plane parallel to the long axis of the body and perpendicular to the sagittal plane that separates the body into front and back portions. The transverse plane is perpendicular to both the sagittal and frontal planes. See Fig. 1.4 for an illustration of these planes of section. A planar biped is a biped with motions taking place only in the sagittal plane, whereas a three-dimensional walker has motions taking place in both the sagittal and frontal planes.
A strathclyde cluster model for gait kinematic measurement using functional methods: a study of inter-assessor reliability analysis with comparison to anatomical models
Published in Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering, 2020
Lin Meng, Lindsay Millar, Craig Childs, Arjan Buis
Three-dimensional marker trajectories were filtered using a fourth-order low-pass Butterworth filter at a cut-off frequency of 10 Hz and processed using the SFCM, PiG and HBM2 models. The SFCM was run using the Vicon Nexus-MATLAB interface. The processing pipelines in the Vicon Nexus were used to generate the PiG model outputs. The HBM2 was applied offline using the D-Flow software (Motekforce Link B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands). Joint angles were calculated at the hip, knee and ankle angles using the standard Cardan sequence of rotations. The sagittal, coronal and transverse plane angles were calculated for the hip and knee (the HBM2 only had sagittal plane knee angle) as well as the sagittal plane angle for the ankle. Twenty gait cycles were extracted for each walking session. All kinematic outputs were time-normalised to a gait cycle (0–100%). The same researcher carried out all post-processing.
Contribution of the tibialis posterior and peroneus longus to inter-segment coordination of the foot during single-leg drop jump
Published in Sports Biomechanics, 2020
Hiroshi Akuzawa, Atsushi Imai, Satoshi Iizuka, Naoto Matsunaga, Koji Kaneoka
Kinematic data were analysed using Visual 3D software (C-motion Inc., Maryland, USA). Three-dimensional (3D) marker trajectories were filtered using a fourth-order Butterworth low-pass filter with a 6-Hz cut-off frequency (Needham et al., 2014). Rearfoot, midfoot, and shank segments were created from reflective markers attached to the bony landmarks according to the RFM (Leardini et al., 2007). Relative 3D rotations between the proximal and distal segments were calculated to quantify the segment angle. Because abnormal kinematics of the rearfoot and midfoot are commonly reported as risk factors for lower limb injuries (Becker et al., 2017, 2018; Hamstra-Wright et al., 2015; Okunuki et al., 2019), the rearfoot and midfoot motion were assessed. Also, since motion in the transverse plane is relatively small, sagittal and coronal plane motions were calculated. Segment angles were normalised by subtraction of angles in the static double-leg standing posture. Segment angle data from landing to leaping in each trial were time scaled to 100%.
Comparing inertial measurement units and marker-based biomechanical models during dynamic rotation of the torso
Published in European Journal of Sport Science, 2020
Sara M. Brice, Elissa J. Phillips, Emma L. Millett, Adam Hunter, Bronson Philippa
Comparison of the relative angles measured using the IMUs and the marker triads surrounding the IMUs showed there was good agreement in all three anatomical reference planes for all trials (Tables I and II). The root mean square errors expressed as a percentage of the angle range (RMSE%) ranged between approximately 1% and 7%. The smallest RMSE% values were observed for the frontal plane rotations followed by the transverse plane and then the sagittal plane. Bland–Altman biases indicate that the IMU relative angles were underestimated for the sagittal and frontal plane rotations as evidenced by the negative biases (Table I). For both the slow and fast transverse plane rotation the Bland–Altman biases indicated that the IMU relative angles were overestimated as evidenced by the positive biases (Tables I and II). The aforementioned RMSE% values and biases indicated the IMUs are valid for measuring relative angles. In addition the coefficients of determination (r2), which ranged between 0.97 and 1.00, indicated the waveforms of the IMU relative angles were closely matched with the gold standard relative angles.