A New Method for the Quality Assurance of Strength Measurements

Ancillao, Andrea

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-67437-7_2

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In clinical practice, it must be considered that some tools which are commonly used to measure motion and applied forces are not recommended to evaluate these aspects unless validated and accompanied by operational protocols, thus ensuring the quality and accuracy of the desired measurements [ 8 , 9 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Validity of the Baiobit Inertial Measurements Unit for the Assessment of Vertical Double- and Single-Leg Countermovement Jumps in Athletes

Camuncoli

Barni

Nutarelli

et al. 2022

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Jump tests are simple, quick to execute, and considered the most reliable tool to measure lower extremities power and explosiveness in athletes. Wearable inertial sensors allow the assessment of jumping performance on any surface. The validity of inertial sensors measurements is a pivotal prerequisite to reliably implement their utilization in the clinical practice. Twenty-seven athletes (20 M/7 F, age: 27 ± 7 years old) performed five double-leg countermovement jumps (CMJs) and three single-leg CMJs per side with their hands on their hips. Jump height was measured/computed simultaneously with the optoelectronic system, force platforms, and the Baiobit inertial sensor system. The athletes completed the international physical activity questionnaire (IPAQ). When comparing the methods (Baiobit vs. force platforms), a non-statistically significant bias of 1.8 cm was found for two-leg CMJs and −0.6 cm for single-leg CMJs. The intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) was “excellent” for double-leg CMJs (ICC = 0.92, 95% CI = 0.89–0.94) and “good” for single-leg CMJs (ICC = 0.89, 95% CI = 0.85–0.91). When comparing the methods (Baiobit vs. force platforms + optoelectronic system), a non-statistically significant bias of −0.9 cm was found for two-leg CMJs and −1.2 cm for single-leg CMJs. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was “good” for both double-leg CMJs (ICC = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.73–0.85) and for single-leg CMJs (ICC = 0.86, 95% CI = 0.80–0.89). Baiobit tends to overestimate double- and single-leg CMJ height measurements; however, it can be recommended in the world of rehabilitation and sport analysis.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Validity of the Baiobit Inertial Measurements Unit for the Assessment of Vertical Double- and Single-Leg Countermovement Jumps in Athletes

Camuncoli

Barni

Nutarelli

et al. 2022

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the context of clinical motion analysis, it is common practice to study joint kinematics by measuring the joint angles. Such measurements allow one to evaluate the healthiness of a joint, its range of motion and its instantaneous configuration [1,2]. Joint angles are typically presented in the form of a clinical report containing the instantaneous projections of the angles of interest on the three conventional anatomical planes: sagittal, frontal and horizontal [3,4].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Novel Procedure for Knee Flexion Angle Estimation Based on Functionally Defined Coordinate Systems and Independent of the Marker Landmarks

Ancillao

Verduyn

Vochten

et al. 2022

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Knee angles are kinematic quantities that are commonly presented in gait analysis reports. They are typically calculated as the relative angles between the anatomical coordinate systems rigidly attached to the femur and the tibia. To give these angles a biomechanical meaning, the coordinate systems must be defined with respect to some anatomical landmarks. For example, if one axis of the joint coordinate systems is directed along the knee flexion/extension axis, then the relative angle assumes the meaning of flexion/extension angle. Defining accurate anatomical coordinate systems is not an easy task, because it requires skills in marker placement, landmark identification and definition of a biomechanical model. In this paper, we present a novel method to (i) functionally define two coordinate systems attached to femur and tibia and (ii) functionally calculate the knee angle based on the relative differential kinematics between the previously defined coordinate systems. As the main limitation, this method is unable to provide an absolute measurement of the knee flexion/extension angle; however, it is able to accurately capture and display the relative angular motion of the knee. We show that our method produced consistent results even when the measured coordinate systems were randomly modified, removing any anatomical referencing. The proposed method has the advantage of being independent/invariant of the choice of the original coordinate systems of the femur and tibia, removing the need for accurate marker placement. Some major consequences are that (i) the markers may be placed on optimal landmarks, for example, minimizing the soft tissue artifacts or improving the subject’s comfort, and (ii) there is no need for anatomical calibration when technical marker clusters/triads are used.

show abstract

The helical axis of anatomical joints: calculation methods, literature review, and software implementation

Ancillao

2022

Med Biol Eng Comput

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A New Method for the Quality Assurance of Strength Measurements

Cited by 4 publications

References 46 publications

Validity of the Baiobit Inertial Measurements Unit for the Assessment of Vertical Double- and Single-Leg Countermovement Jumps in Athletes

Validity of the Baiobit Inertial Measurements Unit for the Assessment of Vertical Double- and Single-Leg Countermovement Jumps in Athletes

A Novel Procedure for Knee Flexion Angle Estimation Based on Functionally Defined Coordinate Systems and Independent of the Marker Landmarks

The helical axis of anatomical joints: calculation methods, literature review, and software implementation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About