AGREEMENT OF HIP KINEMATICS BETWEEN TWO TRACKING MARKER CONFIGURATIONS USED WITH THE CODA PELVIS DURING ERGONOMIC ROOFING TASKS
Advanced Search
Select up to three search categories and corresponding keywords using the fields to the right. Refer to the Help section for more detailed instructions.

Search our Collections & Repository

For very narrow results

When looking for a specific result

Best used for discovery & interchangable words

Recommended to be used in conjunction with other fields

Dates

to

Document Data
Library
People
Clear All
Clear All

For additional assistance using the Custom Query please check out our Help Page

i

AGREEMENT OF HIP KINEMATICS BETWEEN TWO TRACKING MARKER CONFIGURATIONS USED WITH THE CODA PELVIS DURING ERGONOMIC ROOFING TASKS

Filetype[PDF-1.47 MB]


English
Details Supporting Files You May Also Like

Details:

  • Alternative Title:
    J Mech Med Biol
  • Personal Author:
  • Description:
    The anterior and posterior iliac spine markers frequently used to define the pelvis, are commonly occluded during three-dimensional (3D) motion capture. The occlusion of these markers leads to the use of various tracking marker configurations on the pelvis, which affect kinematic results. The purpose of this investigation was to examine the agreement of CODA pelvis kinematic results when two different tracking marker configurations were used during roofing tasks. 3D motion data were collected on seven male subjects while mimicking two roofing tasks. Hip joint angles (HJAs) were computed using the CODA pelvis with two different tracking marker configurations, the trochanter tracking method (TTM), and virtual pelvis tracking method (VPTM). Agreement between tracking marker configurations was assessed using cross-correlations, bivariate correlations, mean absolute differences (MADs), and Bland-Altman (BA) plots. The correlations displayed no time lag and strong agreement (all | > 0.83) between the HJA from the VPTM and TTM, suggesting the timing occurrence of variables are comparable between the two tracking marker configurations. The MAD between the VPTM and TTM displayed magnitude differences, but most of the differences were within a clinically acceptable range. Caution should still be used when comparing kinematic results between various tracking marker configurations, as differences exist.
  • Keywords:
  • Source:
    J Mech Med Biol. 23(3)
  • Pubmed ID:
    37361026
  • Pubmed Central ID:
    PMC10285509
  • Document Type:
    Journal Article
  • Funding:
    CC999999/ImCDC/Intramural CDC HHSUnited States/
  • Volume:
    23
  • Issue:
    3
  • Collection(s):
  • Main Document Checksum:
  • Download URL:
  • File Type:

You May Also Like

Checkout today's featured content at stacks.cdc.gov