Elsevier

Journal of Biomechanics

Volume 48, Issue 10, 16 July 2015, Pages 2019-2025
Journal of Biomechanics

Can optimal marker weightings improve thoracohumeral kinematics accuracy?

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2015.03.023Get rights and content

Abstract

Local and global optimization algorithms have been developed to estimate joint kinematics to reducing soft movement artifact (STA). Such algorithms can include weightings to account for different STA occur at each marker. The objective was to quantify the benefit of optimal weighting and determine if optimal marker weightings can improve humerus kinematics accuracy. A pin with five reflective markers was inserted into the humerus of four subjects. Seven markers were put on the skin of the arm. Subjects performed 38 different tasks including arm elevation, rotation, daily-living tasks, and sport activities. In each movement, mean and peak errors in skin- vs. pins-orientation were reported. Then, optimal marker weightings were found to best match skin- and pin-based orientation. Without weighting, the error of the arm orientation ranged from 1.9° to 17.9°. With weighting, 100% of the trials were improved and the average error was halved. The mid-arm markers weights were close to 0 for three subjects. Weights of a subject applied to the others for a given movement, and weights of a movement applied to others for a given subject did not systematically increased accuracy of arm orientation. Without weighting, a redundant set of marker and least square algorithm improved accuracy to estimate arm orientation compared to data of the literature using electromagnetic sensor. Weightings were subject- and movement-specific, which reinforces that STA are subject- and movement-specific. However, markers on the deltoid insertion and on lateral and medial epicondyles may be preferred if a limited number of markers is used.

Introduction

Human movement kinematics is commonly assessed using stereophotogrammetry and skin-markers placed above bony landmarks. When skeleton kinematics is the subject of interest, the primary source of error in joint angles comes from the displacement of the skin-markers with respect to their underlying bones. This occurrence, termed soft tissue artifact (STA), is the consequence of muscle contraction, skin elasticity, impacts, etc. (Peters et al., 2010). Efforts have been made to reduce errors due to STA, which are usually assessed using invasive methods: e.g. intracortical pins (Andersen et al., 2010, Reinschmidt et al., 1997b) or fluoroscopy (Stagni et al., 2005), for a review see Leardini et al. (2005). Such method have been used to investigate the lower-limb STA (Akbarshahi et al., 2010, Cappozzo et al., 1996, Reinschmidt et al., 1997b, Tsai et al., 2009), but few investigations focused on upper-limb (Hamming et al., 2012b, Matsui et al., 2006). Since STA are different between segments, e.g. thigh vs shank (Benoit et al., 2006, Camomilla et al., 2009, Reinschmidt et al., 1997a, Stagni et al., 2005), further investigations are needed to identify suitable methods for reducing STA propagation to the upper-limb kinematics.

While marker sets exist for upper-limb use in conjunction with optoelectronics systems (Butler et al., 2010, Jackson et al., 2012), electromagnetic sensors are preferred in clinical studies for reasons of space and cost (Finley and Lee, 2003, Hamming et al., 2012a, Meskers et al., 1998, Stokdijk et al., 2003). Efforts have already been made to better track the scapula which slides under the skin (Lempereur et al., 2014). Regarding the humerus, errors up to 30° were reported in axial rotation due to STA (Hamming et al., 2012a) when using cuff mounted electromagnetic sensors. This error cannot be compensated for since one sensor on each segment does not provide any redundancy.

On the lower-limb, markers undergo different STA according to their location. On each marker, STA is composed of a rigid (or in-unison) component and a deformation (or own) component (Andersen et al., 2012, Grimpampi et al., 2014, Leardini et al., 2005). Some authors have proposed mathematical models representing STA (Camomilla et al., 2013, Dumas et al., 2014) and others used least squares algorithms to reduce STA (Cheze et al., 1995), especially the deformation component, in so-called local optimization algorithms. To reduce the rigid component and avoid joint dislocation problems, chain models with set degrees of freedom in combination with nonlinear least squares algorithms (Begon et al., 2009, Laitenberger et al., 2014, Lu and O’Connor, 1999) or extended Kalman filters (Fohanno et al., 2014, Halvorsen et al., 2004) (termed as global optimization) have emerged.

Since STA is not uniform within and between the body segments, these algorithms were improved by introducing weightings, in both global (Alonso et al., 2007, Ausejo et al., 2011, Begon et al., 2008) and local optimization (Andriacchi et al., 1998). Each marker weight can manually be adjusted in the musculoskeletal OpenSim software (Delp et al., 2007). Lu and O’Connor (1999) introduced a weighting matrix to reflect the error distribution among the markers. For simplicity, they chose equal weightings for all the markers at the same segments but smaller weightings to the thigh than the pelvis and shank. Indeed skin movement artefact is bigger on the thigh (Cappozzo et al., 1996). In their application to the upper-limb, Roux et al. (2002) refined the weightings with segmental residual errors given by the algorithm of Söderkvist and Wedin (1994). Unfortunately, to the best of our knowledge, weighting values, methods for their identification, and assessment of the gain in accuracy have never been provided for lower-limb or upper-limb.

The objective of this study was to assess the effect of skin marker weightings in a local optimization algorithm on arm orientation accuracy. First, optimal weightings for each skin marker were obtained based on a gold standard humeral orientation. Then optimal weightings obtained for each movement and each subject were applied to other movements and other subjects to determine if weightings are subject- and/or movement-specific.

Section snippets

Experiment

Four male subjects (age: 32, 41, 44 and 27 years, height: 1.72, 1.82, 1.77 and 1.65 m, mass: 80, 115, 82 and 57 kg, and BMI 27, 35, 26 and 21 kg m−2, for S1 to S4 respectively) volunteered after giving their informed consent. The protocol was approved by the ethic committees of both University of Montreal and Karolinska Institutet, where the experiment took place. As fully described in Dal Maso et al. (2014), an orthopaedic surgeon inserted a pin into the humerus under sterile surgery conditions.

Best scenario

Using seven skin-markers and no weighting, the orientation error (θ¯0) ranged from 1.9° (S4 arm abduction) to 17.9° (S3, combing). The participant with the smallest BMI, S4, showed an average error of 5.4±2.3° (with peak value of 11.1±4.5, see Table 1). The average error in S1 was twice larger than in S4. The tasks subjected to the largest deviations were composed of large arm internal–external rotation (i.e., all movements of internal–external rotations, comb hair and reach back). The smallest

Discussion

The present study assessed the effect of skin marker weightings in local optimization on the accuracy of arm orientation. In line with the early works of Lundberg (1996), using qualitative validation, we explored a method to reduce STA. Based on a gold standard measure (i.e., intracortical pin with five markers reconstructed using 18 cameras), our main findings are that (i) the expected improvement varies between 1° and 5° in the best but unrealistic scenario; (ii) weightings are movement- and,

Conclusion

By comparison to an intracortical pin experiment, the average error of a skin marker based method to estimate humerus orientation was about 10° and could be reduced to 5° when applying optimal marker weightings in a least-square algorithm. Unfortunately, there is no generic set of weightings that will systematically improve the accuracy for all kinds of movements and subjects. While non-invasive techniques to personalize weighting do not exist, using a redundant marker set without weightings

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.

References (49)

  • J.H. Challis

    A procedure for determining rigid body transformation parameters

    J. Biomech.

    (1995)
  • L. Cheze et al.

    A solidification procedure to facilitate kinematic analyses based on video system data

    J. Biomech.

    (1995)
  • F. Dal Maso et al.

    Coupling between 3D displacements and rotations at the glenohumeral joint during dynamic tasks in healthy participants

    Clin. Biomech.

    (2014)
  • W.H. de Vries et al.

    Functionally interpretable local coordinate systems for the upper extremity using inertial & magnetic measurement systems

    J. Biomech.

    (2010)
  • R. Dumas et al.

    Generalized mathematical representation of the soft tissue artefact

    J. Biomech.

    (2014)
  • S. Duprey et al.

    Influence of joint constraints on lower limb kinematics estimation from skin markers using global optimization

    J. Biomech.

    (2010)
  • M.A. Finley et al.

    Effect of sitting posture on 3-dimensional scapular kinematics measured by skin-mounted electromagnetic tracking sensors

    Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil.

    (2003)
  • D. Hamming et al.

    The accuracy of measuring glenohumeral motion with a surface humeral cuff

    J. Biomech.

    (2012)
  • D. Hamming et al.

    The accuracy of measuring glenohumeral motion with a surface humeral cuff

    J. Biomech.

    (2012)
  • M. Jackson et al.

    Improvements in measuring shoulder joint kinematics

    J. Biomech.

    (2012)
  • A. Leardini et al.

    Human movement analysis using stereophotogrammetry. Part 3. Soft tissue artifact assessment and compensation

    Gait Posture

    (2005)
  • M. Lempereur et al.

    Validity and reliability of 3D marker based scapular motion analysis: a systematic review

    J. Biomech.

    (2014)
  • T.W. Lu et al.

    Bone position estimation from skin marker co-ordinates using global optimisation with joint constraints

    J. Biomech.

    (1999)
  • A. Lundberg

    On the use of bone and skin markers in kinematics research

    Hum. Mov. Sci.

    (1996)
  • Cited by (15)

    • Which data should be tracked in forward-dynamic optimisation to best predict muscle forces in a pathological co-contraction case?

      2018, Journal of Biomechanics
      Citation Excerpt :

      Joint kinematics and skin marker STA were obtained from the experimental protocol described in Begon et al. (2015). Briefly, markers were placed on skin and on intracortical-pin clusters screwed in the left humerus of four healthy participants (Begon et al., 2015). A skeletal model was then created and joint kinematics was reconstructed from both skin and intracortical-pin markers (Begon et al., 2015; Laitenberger et al., 2015).

    • Effect of tibia marker placement on knee joint kinematic analysis

      2018, Gait and Posture
      Citation Excerpt :

      These results were in consistent with previous studies which evidenced that changing the definition of marker sets caused only slight differences in the calculated kinematics [14,24]. However, some early studies focused on the number of markers per segment in least square algorithms and highlighted that increasing the number was a valid criterion, also, a cluster made up of four markers seemed a good practical compromise [18,21,32]. The phenomenon of error variability decreased in their studies may due to the markers further apart were affected by less mutually correlated STA [24].

    • Multibody kinematics optimization with marker projection improves the accuracy of the humerus rotational kinematics

      2017, Journal of Biomechanics
      Citation Excerpt :

      In particular, the axial rotation tends to be underestimated (Cutti et al., 2005a; Ludewig et al., 2002; Schmidt et al., 1999) and errors up to 30° on the arm axial rotation were found due to STA, when using an electromagnetic sensor attached to the lateral aspect of the arm (Hamming et al., 2012). Using seven skin markers spread over the arm, this error can be reduced by about 10° (Begon et al., 2015). However, this last study has shown that single-body optimization with marker weightings fails to improve the arm kinematics, since optimal weightings are subject- and task-specific (Begon et al., 2015).

    • Main component of soft tissue artifact of the upper-limbs with respect to different functional, daily life and sports movements

      2017, Journal of Biomechanics
      Citation Excerpt :

      Nevertheless, regardless the task and participant, some markers such as CL5 (lateral part of the clavicle) and EpM (medial epicondyle of the humerus) were always few affected by STA. Consequently as suggested by Begon et al. (2015) these marker locations (lateral part of the clavicle and medial epicondyle of the humerus) may be relevant for a set using a limited number of markers or when the experimenter looks for a sensor location with small STA. Concerning the scapula, (Matsui et al., 2006) observed similar deviation for the two markers located near the acromion process, while the skin marker located on the inferior angle underwent the highest deviation.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text