4.6 Article

Reachable Workspace and Proximal Function Measures for Quantifying Upper Limb Motion

期刊

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/JBHI.2020.2989722

关键词

Cameras; Biomedical measurement; Torso; Biological system modeling; Informatics; Protocols; Kinematics; Depth camera; upper limb; clinical metrics; quantitative; range of motion; functional assessment; rigid body modelling

资金

  1. UCSF Department of Orthopaedic Surgery

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There are a lack of quantitative measures for clinically assessing upper limb function. Conventional biomechanical performance measures are restricted to specialist labs due to hardware cost and complexity, while the resulting measurements require specialists for analysis. Depth cameras are low cost and portable systems that can track surrogate joint positions. However, these motions may not be biologically consistent, which can result in noisy, inaccurate movements. This paper introduces a rigid body modelling method to enforce biological feasibility of the recovered motions. This method is evaluated on an existing depth camera assessment: the reachable workspace (RW) measure for assessing gross shoulder function. As a rigid body model is used, position estimates of new proximal targets can be added, resulting in a proximal function (PF) measure for assessing a subjects ability to touch specific body landmarks. The accuracy, and repeatability of these measures is assessed on ten asymptomatic subjects, with and without rigid body constraints. This analysis is performed both on a low-cost depth camera system and a gold-standard active motion capture system. The addition of rigid body constraints was found to improve accuracy and concordance of the depth camera system, particularly in lateral reaching movements. Both RW and PF measures were found to be feasible candidates for clinical assessment, with future analysis needed to determine their ability to detect changes within specific patient populations.

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

4.6
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