Development of sun compensation by honeybees: how partially experienced bees estimate the sun's course.

No abstract

The objective of this study was to investigate new methods for predicting injury from expected spaceflight dynamic loads by leveraging a broader range of available information in injury biomechanics. Although all spacecraft designs were considered, the primary focus was the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Orion capsule, as the authors have the most knowledge and experience related to this design. The team defined a list of critical injuries and selected the THOR anthropomorphic test device as the basis for new standards and requirements. In addition, the team down-selected the list of available injury metrics to the following: head injury criteria 15, kinematic brain rotational injury criteria, neck axial tension and compression force, maximum chest deflection, lateral shoulder force and displacement, acetabular lateral force, thoracic spine axial compression force, ankle moments, and average distal forearm speed limits. The team felt that these metrics capture all of the injuries that might be expected by a seated crewmember during vehicle aborts and landings. Using previously determined injury risk levels for nominal and off-nominal landings, appropriate injury assessment reference values (IARVs) were defined for each metric. Musculoskeletal deconditioning due to exposure to reduced gravity over time can affect injury risk during landing; therefore a deconditioning factor was applied to all IARVs. Although there are appropriate injury data for each anatomical region of interest, additional research is needed for several metrics to improve the confidence score.

TX INTRODUCTION:Pre-and post-flight dynamometry is performed on International Space Station crewmembers to characterize microgravity-induced strength changes. Strength is not assessed in flight due to hardware limitations and there is poor understanding of the time course of in-flight changes. PURPOSE: To assess the reliability of a prototype dynamometer, the X1 Exoskeleton (EXO) and its agreement with a Biodex System 4 (BIO). METHODS: Eight subjects (4 M/4 F) completed 2 counterbalanced testing sessions of knee extension/flexion (KE/KF), 1 with BIO and 1 with EXO, with repeated measures within each session in normal gravity. Test-retest reliability (test 1 and 2) and device agreement (BIO vs. EXO) were evaluated. Later, to assess device agreement for ankle plantarflexion (PF), 10 subjects (4 M/6 F) completed 3 test conditions (BIO, EXO, and BIOEXO); BIOEXO was a hybrid condition comprised of the Biodex dynamometer motor and the X1 footplate and ankle frame. Ankle comparisons were: BIO vs. BIOEXO (footplate differences), BIOEXO vs. EXO (motor differences), and BIO vs. EXO (all differences). Reliability for KE/KF was determined by intraclass correlation (ICC). Device agreement was assessed with: 1) repeated measures ANOVA, 2) a measure of concordance (rho), and 3) average difference. RESULTS: ICCs for KE/KF were 0.99 for BIO and 0.96 to 0.99 for EXO. Agreement was high for KE (concordance: 0.86 to 0.95; average differences: -7 to +9 Nm) and low to moderate for KF (concordance: 0.64 to 0.78; average differences: -4 to -29 Nm, P<0.05). BIO vs. BIOEXO PF concordance ranged from 0.89 to 0.92 and mean differences ranged from -9 to +3 Nm (BIO < BIOEXO). BIOEXO vs. EXO PF concordance ranged from 0.73 to 0.80 while mean differences were -18 to -36 Nm (BIOEXO < EXO, P<0.05). PF concordance for BIO vs. EXO was slightly lower (0.61 to 0.84) and mean differences were greater (-27 to -33 Nm; BIO < EXO, P<0.05). CONCLUSION: BIO and EXO were similarly reliable for KE and KF. KE measures produced high agreement between devices; KF did not. For ankle PF, torque differences due to the two footplates were small. However, the X1 motor reports greater torques than the Biodex motor during PF. This first prototype provides proof of concept for a reliable, robotic-based exoskeleton to perform portable dynamometry for large muscle groups of the lower body.