Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 2 of 2 items for :

  • "instant center of rotation" x
Clear All
Restricted access

John H. Hollman, Robert H. Deusinger, Linda R. Van Dillen, Dequan Zou, Scott D. Minor, Matthew J. Matava and Jack R. Engsberg

Context:

Analyses of the path of instant center of rotation (PICR) can be used to infer joint-surface rolling and sliding motion (arthrokinematics). Previous PICR research has not quantified arthrokinematics during weight-bearing (WB) movement conditions or studied the association of muscle activity with arthrokinematics.

Objective:

To examine tibiofemoral arthrokinematics and thigh-muscle EMG during WB and non-weight-bearing (NWB) movement.

Design:

2 x 9 repeated-measures experiment.

Setting:

Laboratory.

Participants:

11 healthy adults (mean age 24 years).

Main Outcome Measures:

Tibiofemoral percentage rolling arthrokinematics and quadriceps: hamstring EMG activity.

Results:

WB percentage rolling (76.0% ± 4.7%) exceeded that of NWB (57.5% ± 1.8%) through terminal knee extension (F 8,80 = 8.99, P < .001). Quadriceps:hamstring EMG ratios accounted for 45.1% and 34.7% of the variance in arthrokinematics throughout the WB and NWB movement conditions, respectively (P < .001).

Conclusions:

More joint-surface rolling occurs through terminal knee extension during WB movement and is associated with an increase in hamstring activity.

Restricted access

Andy Roosen, Matthew T.G. Pain and Mickaël Begon

Much research is ongoing into improving the accuracy of functional algorithms to determine joint centers (JC), but there has been limited testing using human movement data. This paper is in three parts: Part 1, errors in determining JCs from real human movement data using the SCoRE method; Part 2, variability of marker combinations during a punch; Part 3, variability in the JC due to reconstruction. Results indicate determining the JC of the shoulder or elbow with a triad of markers per segment with an accuracy greater than 20 mm is unlikely. Part 2 suggests conducting a pilot study with abundant markers to obtain triads, which are most stable due to differences of 300–400% in variability between triads. Variability due to the choice of reference frame for reconstruction during the punch ranged from 2.5 to 13.8 mm for the shoulder and 1.5 to 21.1 mm for the elbow. It would appear more pertinent to enhance the practical methods in situ than to further improve theoretical accuracy of functional methods.