Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 4 of 4 items for :

  • "3D analysis" x
  • Athletic Training, Therapy, and Rehabilitation x
  • User-accessible content x
Clear All
Open access

Kai-Yu Ho, Brenda Benson Deaver, Tyrel Nelson and Catherine Turner

controls ( r  = .46–.57; P  ≤ .003) (Figures  2A – 2C ) and individuals with ACLR ( r  = .52–.66; P  ≤ .004) (Figures  2D – 2F ). In addition, peak knee valgus obtained by the MAA was significantly greater than that obtained by 3D analysis across all tasks in both groups ( P  < .001; Table  1 ). No

Open access

Scott W. Cheatham, Kyle R. Stull, Mike Fantigrassi and Ian Montel

 al 25 Clinical trial FAI-CAM impingement N = 26 men Exp (FAI): n = 15 Control: n = 11 Bodyweight squat 3D analysis of hip and pelvic motion Subjects with FAI had no difference in hip motion when compared with controls but had decreased sagittal plane pelvic ROM (14.7° (8.4°) vs 24.2° (6.8°)) when

Open access

Kathryn Mills, Aula Idris, Thu-An Pham, John Porte, Mark Wiggins and Manolya Kavakli

difference in the mean of each participant’s peak knee angles as detected by the VR game and 3D analysis as function of the mean of the measures. Solid lines indicate the mean difference (95% CI), or bias, in the VR game. Broken lines and shading indicate the 95% limits of agreement and 95% CI. VR indicates

Open access

Mohammad Reza Pourahmadi, Ismail Ebrahimi Takamjani, Shapour Jaberzadeh, Javad Sarrafzadeh, Mohammad Ali Sanjari, Rasool Bagheri and Morteza Taghipour

during STS. Methods Scope and Boundaries This review intended to examine the methodological considerations for 2-dimensional and 3-D analysis of spinal movements using motion analysis systems. Areas for review included study and participant characteristics, motion analysis system, marker/sensor design