4.3 Article

Comparison of a semiautomatic protocol using plastering and three-dimensional scanning techniques with the direct measurement protocol for hand anthropometry

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/hfm.20697

关键词

direct measurement; hand anthropometry; performance evaluation; semiautomatic measurement; 3D scanning

资金

  1. National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) - Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology [NRF-2014R1A6A3A03057771, NRF-2015R1A2A2A03005486]
  2. Ministry of Trade, Industry, and Energy under Industrial Technology Innovation Program [10063384]
  3. National Research Foundation of Korea [2014R1A6A3A03057771] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to compare a three-dimensional (3D) semiautomatic measurement protocol (3D-SAMP) that measures hand dimensions using a plaster hand and a 3D scanner with the conventional direct measurement protocol (DMP). An experiment was conducted to measure 52 dimensions of one hand by 20 measurers with three repetitions. The locations of landmarks attached to the plaster hand were automatically identified and then measurements of the hand dimensions were automatically extracted in the 3D-SAMP. Significant measurement differences with a range of 2.1 to 4.4 mm between the 3D-SAMP and the DMP were observed in 13 out of the 52 dimensions, and the 3D-SAMP showed better reliability than the DMP in terms of intra- and intermeasurer variability. The 3D-SAMP was found significantly faster and easier in hand measurement than the DMP (11.1 +/- 3.5 min for 3D-SAMP and 17.8 +/- 4.5 min for DMP; 5.2 +/- 0.8 for 3D-SAMP and 4.3 +/- 0.8 for DMP using a 7-point scale with 1 for very dissatisfied and 7 for very satisfied for ease of measurement) when fabrication (about 1 hr 10 min) and scanning (3 min) of a plaster hand were not considered. The proposed 3D-SAMP is applicable only to plaster hands available in hand measurement.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据