Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

A comparison of kinematic recording instruments

Abstract

Kinematics, the study of motion, is employed in numerous biomechanics and human performance investigations. The types of instrumentation used in these studies vary at fundamental technical levels, making it difficult to relate results from studies carried out at different laboratories using different instrumentation. A project was designed to compare two commonly used types of kinematic recording techniques, i.e., the 6 df electromagnetic tracker system and the video motion analysis system. A four-level testing and comparison method was conducted involving static and dynamic inanimate objects, as well as human subjects under static and dynamic conditions. It was demonstrated that for rigid body inanimate objects the two systems produce nearly identical values under stationary conditions and are comparable under moving conditions. The systems show only trivial discrepancies in static human body measurements, and perform in qualitatively similar ways on human motion.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. 1.

    Ayoub, M.M., Human movement recording for biomechanical analysis.Int. J. Prod. Res. 10(1):35–51, 1972.

  2. 2.

    Tyson, J.N., and Das, B., A comparative analysis of anthropometric and kinematic measurement systems. In (B. Das, ed.),Advances in Industrial Ergonomics and Safety II, Taylor & Francis, pp. 301–308, 1990.

  3. 3.

    Logan, S.E., Vannier, M.W., Bresina, S.J., and Weeks, P.M., Wrist kinematic analysis using a 6 degree of freedom digitizer.Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, 13–17, 1985.

  4. 4.

    Bresina, S.J., Vannier, M.W., Logan, S.E., and Weeks, P.M., Three-dimensional wrist imaging: Evaluation of functional and pathologic anatomy by computer.Clin. Plast. Surg. 13(3):389–405, 1986.

  5. 5.

    An, K.-N., Jacobsen, M.C., Berglund, L.J., and Chao, E.Y.S., Application of a magnetic tracking device to kinesiologic studies.J. Biomech. 21(7):613–620, 1988.

  6. 6.

    Logan, S.E., Groszewski, P., Krieg, J.C., and Vannier, M., Upper extremity kinematics assessment using four coupled six degree of freedom sensors.ISA Proceedings 75–81, Paper #88-0211, 1988.

  7. 7.

    Pearcy, M.J., and Hindle, R.J., New method for the non-invasive three dimensional measurement of human back movement.Clin. Biomech. 4:73–79, 1989.

  8. 8.

    Bravo, O., Angular levers and power in the human body.IEEE Eng. Med. Biol. 11:55–60, 1992.

  9. 9.

    Diener, H.-C., Bacher, M., Guschlbauer, B., Thomas, C., and Dichgans, J., The coordination of posture and voluntary movement in patients with hemiparesis.J. Neurol. 240:161–167, 1993.

  10. 10.

    Bak, D.J., Electromagnetic monitoring quantifies motion behavior.Design News 88–91, 1986.

  11. 11.

    Maulucci, R.A., Optimal Workspace Design. Technical Report, National Aeronautics and Space Administration Contract NAS9-18514, Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX, 1993.

  12. 12.

    Maulucci, R.A., Nonstandard Functional Limb Trajectories. Technical Report, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Contract NAS9-18915, Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX, 1995.

  13. 13.

    Eckhouse, R.H., Leonard, E.L., Zhuang, Q., and Maulucci, R.A., Improving reaching in preschool children with cerebral palsy through regulated feedback.IEEE Transact. Rehab. Eng. 2(3):147–157, 1994.

  14. 14.

    Isenberg, C., and Conrad, B., Kinematic properties of slow arm movements in Parkinson's disease.J. Neurol. 241:323–330, 1994.

  15. 15.

    Flanagan, J.R., and Rao, A.K., Trajectory adaptation to a nonlinear visuomotor transformation: evidence of motion planning in visually perceived space.J. Neurophysiol. 74(5):2174–2178, 1995.

  16. 16.

    Sherif, M.H., Gregor, R.J., and Lyman, J., Effects of load on myoelectric signals: the ARIMA representation.IEEE Transact. Biomed. Eng. 28(5):411–416, 1981.

  17. 17.

    Fetters, L., and Todd, J., Quantitative assessment of infant reaching movements.J. Motor Behav. 19(2):147–166, 1987.

  18. 18.

    Fleiss, J.L.,The Design and Analysis of Clinical Experiments, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1986.

  19. 19.

    Olkin, I., and Pratt, J.W., Unbiased estimation of certain correlation coefficients.Amer. Math. Stat. 29:209–211, 1958.

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to Richard H. Eckhouse.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Eckhouse, R.H., Penny, M.A. & Maulucci, R.A. A comparison of kinematic recording instruments. J Med Syst 20, 439–456 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02257287

Download citation

Key Words

  • Kinematics
  • electromagnetic tracker
  • video motion analyzer
  • reaching