Comparative analysis of whole-body center-of-mass estimation methods in dynamic and static activities using marker-based systems
Fuente:
arXiv
Gespeichert in:
| Hauptverfasser: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Preprint |
| Veröffentlicht: |
2024
|
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| _version_ | 1866909407569248256 |
|---|---|
| author | Peng, Jingshu Noghani, Mohsen Alizadeh Bolívar-Nieto, Edgar |
| author_facet | Peng, Jingshu Noghani, Mohsen Alizadeh Bolívar-Nieto, Edgar |
| contents | Accurate estimation of the whole-body center of mass (CoM) is essential for assessing human stability and postural control. However, selecting the most accurate estimation method is challenging due to the complexity of human movement, diverse nature of activities, and varying availability of equipment, such as marker-based systems and ground reaction force (GRF) sensors. This study compares three CoM estimation methods -- "Pelvis Markerset", "Whole-Body Markerset", and "Whole-Body Markerset & GRFs" -- across static activities, such as standing with eyes closed, and dynamic activities, such as picking up an object from the ground. Using the root mean square (RMS) of "external force residual" (the difference between measured ground reaction forces and estimated CoM accelerations multiplied by total body mass) as a performance metric, we found that while all methods performed similarly under static conditions, the "Pelvis Markerset" method showed 96% to 104% higher RMS external force residual values during dynamic activities compared to the two whole-body methods ($p<0.001$, Cohen's $d$:2.90-3.04). The accuracy of "Whole-Body Markerset & GRFs" (i.e., Kalman filter) was similar to "Whole-Body Markerset", suggesting that incorporating the GRFs through the presented Kalman filter does not improve the estimates from whole-body kinematics. Based on these findings, we recommend the "Whole-Body Markerset" as it performs well and does not require information from GRFs. The "Pelvis Markerset" method can be used in static activities or when markersets around the pelvis reflect whole-body kinematics. This method is not recommended for CoM state estimation in highly dynamic scenarios and when whole-body markersets are available. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2411_18774 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2024 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | Comparative analysis of whole-body center-of-mass estimation methods in dynamic and static activities using marker-based systems Peng, Jingshu Noghani, Mohsen Alizadeh Bolívar-Nieto, Edgar Quantitative Methods Accurate estimation of the whole-body center of mass (CoM) is essential for assessing human stability and postural control. However, selecting the most accurate estimation method is challenging due to the complexity of human movement, diverse nature of activities, and varying availability of equipment, such as marker-based systems and ground reaction force (GRF) sensors. This study compares three CoM estimation methods -- "Pelvis Markerset", "Whole-Body Markerset", and "Whole-Body Markerset & GRFs" -- across static activities, such as standing with eyes closed, and dynamic activities, such as picking up an object from the ground. Using the root mean square (RMS) of "external force residual" (the difference between measured ground reaction forces and estimated CoM accelerations multiplied by total body mass) as a performance metric, we found that while all methods performed similarly under static conditions, the "Pelvis Markerset" method showed 96% to 104% higher RMS external force residual values during dynamic activities compared to the two whole-body methods ($p<0.001$, Cohen's $d$:2.90-3.04). The accuracy of "Whole-Body Markerset & GRFs" (i.e., Kalman filter) was similar to "Whole-Body Markerset", suggesting that incorporating the GRFs through the presented Kalman filter does not improve the estimates from whole-body kinematics. Based on these findings, we recommend the "Whole-Body Markerset" as it performs well and does not require information from GRFs. The "Pelvis Markerset" method can be used in static activities or when markersets around the pelvis reflect whole-body kinematics. This method is not recommended for CoM state estimation in highly dynamic scenarios and when whole-body markersets are available. |
| title | Comparative analysis of whole-body center-of-mass estimation methods in dynamic and static activities using marker-based systems |
| topic | Quantitative Methods |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.18774 |