Pediatric Anthropometry

Chapter

Abstract

Anthropometry is the measurement of human size, shape, and physical capabilities. Most pediatric anthropometry data are gathered to describe child growth patterns, but data on body size, mass distribution, range of motion, and posture are used to develop crash test dummies and computational models of child occupants. Pediatric anthropometry data are also used to determine child restraint dimensions, so they will accommodate the applicable population of child occupants.

References

  1. Arbogast KB, Gholve PA, Friedman JE et al (2007) Normal cervical spine range of motion in children 3–12 years old. Spine 32:309–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bradtmiller B (1996) Sizing head forms: design and development. Technologies for occupant protection assessment. SAE Tech Paper # SAE-SP-1174Google Scholar
  3. Beusenberg M, Happee R, Twisk D et al (1993) Status of Injury Biomechanics for the Development of Child Dummies, SAE Technical Paper 933104, doi:10.4271/933104Google Scholar
  4. Burdi AR, Huelke DF, Snyder RG et al (1969) Infants and children in the adult world of automobile safety design: pediatric and anatomical considerations for design of child restraints. J Biomech 2(3):267–280Google Scholar
  5. Chamouard F, Tarriere C, Baudrit P (1996) Protection of children on board vehicles: influence of pelvis design and thigh and abdomen stiffness on the submarining risk for dummies installed on a booster. Presented at the 15th international technical conference on the enhanced safety of vehicles, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  6. de Onis M, Onyango AW, Borghi et al (2007) Development of a WHO growth reference for school-aged children and adolescents. Bull World Health Organ 85:660–667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dreyfuss H, Tilley AR (1993) The Measure of man and woman: human factors in design. Whitney Library of Design. New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dreyfuss H and Tilley AR (2002) The measure of man & woman, edited by John Wiley & Sons, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ganley KJ, Powers CM (2004) Anthropometric parameters in children: a comparison of values obtained from dual energy X-ray absorptiometry and cadaver-based estimates. Gait Posture 19:133–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hedley AA, Ogden CL, Johnson CL et al (2004) Overweight and obesity among US children, adolescents, and adults, 1999–2002. JAMA 291:2847–2850CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Huang S, Reed MP (2006) Comparison of child body dimensions with rear seat geometry. SAE Transactions: Journal of Passenger Cars – Mechanical Systems, 115:1078–1087Google Scholar
  12. Irwin AL, Mertz HJ (1997) Biomechanical bases for the CRABI and Hybrid III child dummies. SAE Tech Paper #973317Google Scholar
  13. Jensen RK (1986a) The growth of children’s moment of inertia. Med Sci Sports Exerc 18:440–445Google Scholar
  14. Jensen RK (1986b) Body segment mass, radius and radius of gyration proportions of children. J Biomech 19:359–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jensen RK (1981a) The effect of a 12-month growth period on the body moments of inertia of children. Med Sci Sports Exerc 13:238–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jensen RK (1981b) Age and body type comparisons of the mass distributions of children. Growth 45:239–251Google Scholar
  17. Jensen RK, Nassas G (1988) Growth of segment principal moments of inertia between four and twenty years. Med Sci Sports Exerc 20:594–604Google Scholar
  18. Kasai T, Ikata T, Katoh S et al (1996) Growth of the cervical spine with special reference to its lordosis and mobility. Spine 21:2067–2073CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Klinich KD, Pritz HB, Beebe MS et al (1994) Survey of older children in automotive restraints. SAE Tech Paper #942222Google Scholar
  20. Kondratek M, Krauss J, Stiller C et al (2007) Normative values for active lumbar range of motion in children. Pediatr Phys Ther 19:236–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kuczmarski RJ, Ogden CL, Guo SS et al (2002) 2000 CDC growth charts for the United States: methods and development. National Center for Health Statistics. Vital Health Stat 11(246)Google Scholar
  22. Lebiedowska MK, Polisiakiewicz AJ (1997) Changes in the lower leg moment of inertia due to child’s growth. Biomechanics 30:723–728CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Levick N, Solaiyappan M, Gentry J, et al (2001) Modalities for constructing 3-D models of head and neck anthropometry, spinal cord and vertebral structures of infants to adolescents – for application to crash test dummy design. SAE Technical Paper 2001-01-0172, doi:10.4271/2001-01-0172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lewandowski J, Szulc P (2003) The range of motion of the cervical spine in children aged from 3 to 7 years – an electrogoniometric study. Folia Morphol (Warsz) 62(4):459–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Li Y, Dangerfield PH (1993) Inertial characteristics of children and their application to growth study. Ann Hum Biol 20:433–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Loyd AM, Nightingale R, Bass CR et al (2010) Pediatric head contours and inertial properties for ATD design. Stapp Car Crash J 54:167–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lynch-Caris T, Brelin-Fornari J, Van Pelt C (2006) Cervical range of motion data in children. SAE Tech Paper #2006-01-1140Google Scholar
  28. Norris B, Wilson JR (1995) Childata: the handbook of child measurements and capabilities: data for design safety. Department of Trade and Industry. Consumer Safety Unit, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  29. Netter, Henry F, Dalley AF (1997) Atlas of Human Anatomy. East Hanover, NJ: Novartis Print.Google Scholar
  30. Ohman AM, Beckung ER (2008) Reference values for range of motion and muscle function of the neck in infants. Pediatr Phys Ther Springer 20(1):53–58Google Scholar
  31. Ogden CL, Lamb MM, Carroll MD et al (2010) Obesity and socioeconomic status in children and adolescents: United States, 2005–2008. NCHS Data Brief (51):1–8Google Scholar
  32. Prange MT, Luck JF, Dibb A et al (2004) Mechanical properties and anthropometry of the human infant head. Stapp Car Crash J 48:279–299Google Scholar
  33. Reed MP, Ebert SM, Rupp JD (2010) Pediatric thoracic and shoulder skeletal geometry. UMTRI Technical Report 2010–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Reed MP, Sochor MM, Rupp JD et al (2009) Anthropometric specification of child crash dummy pelves through statistical analysis of skeletal geometry. J Biomech 42:1143–1145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Reed MP, Parkinson MB (2008) Modeling variability in torso shape for chair and seat design. Presented at the ASME design engineering technical conferences. DETC2008-49483, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  36. Reed MP, Ebert-Hamiton SM, Manary MA et al (2006) Improved positioning procedures for 6YO and 10YO ATD’s based on child occupant postures. Stapp Car Crash J 50:337–388Google Scholar
  37. Reed MP, Lehta MM, Schneider LW (2001) Development of anthropometric specifications for the six-year-old OCATD. SAE Tech Paper #2001-01-1057Google Scholar
  38. Robinette K., Blackwell S, Daanen H et al (2002) Civilian American and European surface anthropometry (CAESAR). ASAF Research Lab AFRL-HE-WP-TR-2002-0169Google Scholar
  39. Roebuck JA (1995) Anthropometric methods: designing to fit the human body. Presented at human factors and ergonomics society, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  40. Roebuck JA, Thomson WG, Kroemer KH et al (1975) Engineering anthropometry methods. Wiley and Sons, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  41. Schneider K, Zernicke RF (1992) Mass, center of mass, and moment of inertia estimates for infant limb segments. J Biomech 25:145–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Schneider LW, Owings CL, Lehman RJ et al (1985) Anthropometry and shape of children’s heads, necks, and shoulders for product safety design. University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute, Ann Arbor, MIGoogle Scholar
  43. Serre T, Lalys L, Brunet C et al (2006) 3 and 6 years old child anthropometry and comparison with crash dummies. SAE Tech Paper #2006-01-2354Google Scholar
  44. Smith S, Norris B (2001) Childata: Assessment of the Validity of Data. http://www.virart.nott.ac.uk/pstg/childchanges.htm.Google Scholar
  45. Snyder RG, Schneider LW, Owings CL et al (1977) Anthopometry of infants, children, and youths to age 18 for product safety design. Highway Safety Research Institute, Ann Arbor, UM-HSRI-77-17Google Scholar
  46. Snyder RG, Spencer ML, Owings CL et al (1975) Physical characteristics of children as related to death and injury for consumer product safety design. SAE Tech Paper #SAE-SP-394Google Scholar
  47. Sun H, Jensen RJ (1994) Body segment growth during infancy. Biomechanics 27:265–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Twisk D (1994) Anthropometric data of children for the development of dummies. TNO Report 75061275-BGoogle Scholar
  49. Van Ratinger MR, Schroolen M, Twisk D et al (1997) Biomechanically based design and performance targets for a 3-year-old-child crash dummy for front and side impact. SAE Tech Paper #973316Google Scholar
  50. Youdas JW, Garrett TR, Suman VJ et al (1992) Normal range of motion of the cervical spine: an initial goniometric study. Phys Ther 72(11):770–780Google Scholar
  51. Weber K, Schneider L (1985) Child anthropometry for restraint system design. UMTRI-85-23Google Scholar
  52. Wells JP, Hyler-Both DL, Danley TD et al (2002) Biomechanics of growth and development in the healthy human infant: a pilot study. J Am Osteopath Assoc 102:313–319Google Scholar
  53. WHO Multicentre Growth Reference Study Group (2007) WHO child growth standards: Head circumference-for-age, arm circumference-for-age, triceps skinfold-for-age and subscapular skinfold-for-age: methods and development. Geneva: World Health OrganizationGoogle Scholar
  54. Wolanin MJ, Mertz HJ, Nyznyk RS et al (1982) Description and basis of a three-year-old child dummy for evaluation passenger inflatable restraint concepts. Presented at the ninth international technical conference on experimental safety vehicles, Kyoto, Japan, SAE Tech Paper #826040Google Scholar
  55. Yeadon MR, Morlock M (1989) The appropriate use of regression equations for the estimation of segmental inertia parameters. J Biomech 22:683–689CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Young JW, McConville JT, Reynolds HM et al (1976) Development and evaluation of masterbody forms for three-year old and six-year-old child dummies. DOT HS-801 811Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Biosciences GroupUniversity of Michigan Transportation Research InstituteAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations