Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Defining humeral axial rotation with optical motion capture and inertial measurement units during functional task assessment

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Humeral motion can be challenging to measure and analyze. Typically, Euler/Cardan sequences are used for humeral angle decomposition, but choice of rotation sequence has substantial effects on outcomes. A new method called True axial rotation calculation may be more precise. The objective of this study is to compare humeral axial rotation measured from two systems (optical motion capture and inertial measurement units (IMUs)) and calculated with two methods (Euler angles and True axial). Motion of torso and dominant humerus of thirty participants free from any upper limb impairments was tracked using both systems. Each participant performed a functional tasks protocol. Humeral axial rotation was calculated with Euler decomposition and the True axial method. Waveforms were compared with two-way ANOVA statistical parametric mapping. A consistent pattern emerged: axial rotation was not different between motion capture systems when using the True axial method (p > .05), but motion capture systems showed relatively large magnitude differences (~ 20–30°) when using Euler angle calculation. Between-calculation method differences were large for both motion capture systems. Findings suggest that the True axial rotation method may result in more consistent findings that will allow for precise measurements and comparison between motion capture systems.

Graphical Abstract

Two methods for calculating humeral axial rotation measured from optical motion capture and inertial measurement units were compared.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Valevicius AM, Jun PY, Hebert JS, Vette AH (2018) Use of optical motion capture for the analysis of normative upper body kinematics during functional upper limb tasks: A systematic review. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 40:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JELEKIN.2018.02.011

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bonnefoy-Mazure A, Slawinski J, Riquet A, Lévèque JM, Miller C, Chèze L (2010) Rotation sequence is an important factor in shoulder kinematics. Application to the elite players’ flat serves. J Biomech 43(10):2022–2025. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JBIOMECH.2010.03.028

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Phadke V, Braman JP, LaPrade RF, Ludewig PM (2011) Comparison of glenohumeral motion using different rotation sequences. J Biomech 44(4):700–705. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2010.10.042

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. AJ Schnorenberg, BA Slavens (2021) Effect of Rotation Sequence on Thoracohumeral Joint Kinematics during Various Shoulder Postures. In Proceedings of the Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, EMBS 4912–4915. https://doi.org/10.1109/EMBC46164.2021.9629667.

  5. Senk M, Cheze L (2006) Rotation sequence as an important factor in shoulder kinematics. Clin Biomech 21:3–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2005.09.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Wu G et al (2005) ISB recommendation on definitions of joint coordinate systems of various joints for the reporting of human joint motion - Part II: Shoulder, elbow, wrist and hand. J Biomech 38(5):981–992. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2004.05.042

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Doorenbosch CAM, Harlaar J, Dirkjan HEJ, Veeger (2003) The globe system: An unambiguous description of shoulder positions in daily life movements. J Rehabil Res Dev 40(2):147–156. https://doi.org/10.1682/JRRD.2003.03.0149

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Lang AE, Dickerson CR (2017) Normative kinematics of reaching and dexterity tasks: moving towards a quantitative baseline for Functional Capacity Evaluations (FCEs). Int Biomech 4(2):37–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/23335432.2017.1326843

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Lang AE, Dickerson CR (2017) Task intensity influences upper limb and torso kinematics during two common overhead Functional Capacity Evaluation tasks. Work 58(2):121–134

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. van Andel CJ, Wolterbeek N, Doorenbosch CAM, Veeger DHEJ, Harlaar J (2008) Complete 3D kinematics of upper extremity functional tasks. Gait Posture 27(1):120–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2007.03.002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kontaxis A, Cutti AG, Johnson GR, Veeger HEJ (2009) A framework for the definition of standardized protocols for measuring upper-extremity kinematics. Clin Biomech. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2008.12.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Friesen KB, Ostryzniuk A, Lang AE (2023) Comparison of scapular kinematics from optical motion capture and inertial measurement units during a work-related and functional task protocol. Med Biol Eng Comput 61:1521–1531. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11517-023-02794-2

  13. Aliaj K, Foreman KB, Chalmers PN, Henninger HB (2021) Beyond Euler/Cardan analysis: True glenohumeral axial rotation during arm elevation and rotation. Gait Posture 88:28–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.GAITPOST.2021.05.004

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Seitz AL, Mcclure PW, Finucane S, Boardman ND, Michener LA (2011) Mechanisms of rotator cuff tendinopathy : Intrinsic, extrinsic, or both? Clin Biomech 26:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2010.08.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Ogston JB, Ludewig PM (2007) Differences in 3-Dimensional shoulder kinematics between persons with multidirectional instability and asymptomatic controls. Am J Sports Med 35(8):1361–1370. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546507300820

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Van Der Molen HF, Foresti C, Daams JG, Frings-Dresen MHW, Kuijer PPFM (2017) Work-related risk factors for specific shoulder disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Occup Environ Med 74(10):745–755. https://doi.org/10.1136/oemed-2017-104339

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Aizawa J et al (2010) Three-dimensional motion of the upper extremity joints during various activities of daily living. J Biomech 43(15):2915–2922. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2010.07.006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kasten P, Rettig O, Loew M, Wolf S, Raiss P (2009) Three-dimensional motion analysis of compensatory movements in patients with radioulnar synostosis performing activities of daily living. J Orthop Sci 14:307–312. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00776-009-1332-0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. HEJ Veeger, DJ Magermans, J Nagels, EKJ Chadwick, FCT Van Der Helm (2006) A kinematical analysis of the shoulder after arthroplasty during a hair combing task. Clin Biomech 21(SUPPL 1). https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CLINBIOMECH.2005.09.012

  20. Defroda SF, Goyal D, Patel N, Gupta N, Mulcahey MK (2018) Shoulder instability in the overhead athlete. Curr Sports Med Rep 17(9):308–314. https://doi.org/10.1249/JSR.0000000000000517

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Kibler WB (1995) Biomechanical analysis of the shoulder during tennis activities. Clin Sports Med 14(1):79–85

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Wilk KE et al (2015) Deficits in Glenohumeral Passive Range of Motion Increase Risk of Shoulder Injury in Professional Baseball Pitchers A Prospective Study. Am J Sports Med 43(10):2379–2385. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546515594380

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Cutti A, Giovanni A, Rocchi L, Davilli A, Sacchetti R (2008) Ambulatory measurement of shoulder and elbow kinematics through inertial and magnetic sensors. Med Biol Eng Comput 46:169–178. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11517-007-0296-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Winter DA (2009) Biomechanics and Motor Control of Human Movement, 4th edn. Wiley, Hoboken, New Jersey, New Jersey

    Book  Google Scholar 

  25. Pataky TC (2010) Generalized n-dimensional biomechanical field analysis using statistical parametric mapping. J Biomech 43:1976–1982. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2010.03.008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Kobayashi K et al (2022) Application of statistical parametric mapping for comparison of scapular kinematics and EMG. J Biomech 145:111357. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JBIOMECH.2022.111357

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Höglund G, Grip H, Öhberg F (2021) The importance of inertial measurement unit placement in assessing upper limb motion. Med Eng Phys 92:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.medengphy.2021.03.010

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Cutti AG, Paolini G, Troncossi M, Cappello A, Davalli A (2005) Soft tissue artefact assessment in humeral axial rotation. Gait Posture 21(3):341–349. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.GAITPOST.2004.04.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Fethke NB, Schall MC, Chen H, Branch CA, Merlino LA (2020) Biomechanical factors during common agricultural activities: Results of on-farm exposure assessments using direct measurement methods. J Occup Environ Hyg 17(2–3):85–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/15459624.2020.1717502

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Lang AE, Card A, Barden J, Kim SY (2022) The effect of breast reconstruction on kinematics and performance during a range of upper limb functional tasks. Plast Reconstr Surg 150(4):e747–e756

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Lang AE, Maciukiewicz JM, Vidt ME, Grenier SG, Dickerson CR (2018) Workstation configuration and container type influence upper limb posture in grocery bagging. Appl Ergon 73:206–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2018.07.012

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Bruttel H, Spranz DM, Bülhoff M, Aljohani N, Wolf SI, Maier MW (2019) Comparison of glenohumeral and humerothoracical range of motion in healthy controls, osteoarthritic patients and patients after total shoulder arthroplasty performing different activities of daily living. Gait Posture 71:20–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2019.04.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Oosterwijk AM, Nieuwenhuis MK, Van Der Schans CP, Mouton LJ (2018) Shoulder and elbow range of motion for the performance of activities of daily living: A systematic review Shoulder and elbow range of motion for the performance of activities of daily living: A systematic review. Physiother Theory Pract 34(7):505–528. https://doi.org/10.1080/09593985.2017.1422206

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Yildiz TI et al (2020) The repeatability of 3-dimensional scapular kinematic analysis during bilateral upper extremity movements. J Bodyw Mov Ther 24:37–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbmt.2020.06.038

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Menegoni F, Vismara L, Capodaglio P, Crivellini M, Galli M (2008) Kinematics of trunk movements: protocol design and application in obese females. J Appl Biomater Biomech 6(3):178–185

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. MN Haik, Francisco Alburquerque-Sendín, PR Camargo (2014) Reliability and Minimal Detectable Change of 3-Dimensional Scapular Orientation in Individuals With and Without Shoulder Impingement. J Orthop Sport Phys Ther 44(5) 341–349. Downloaded from www.jospt.org. https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2014.4705

  37. J Clément, JA De Guise, A Fuentes, N Hagemeister (2018) Comparison of soft tissue artifact and its effects on knee kinematics between non-obese and obese subjects performing a squatting activity recorded using an exoskeleton. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2018.01.009

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Canadian Centre for Health and Safety in Agriculture, College of Medicine, University of Saskatchewan, 104 Clinic Place, Saskatoon, SK, S7N 2Z4, Canada

    Angelica E. Lang & Kenzie B. Friesen

Authors
  1. Angelica E. Lang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kenzie B. Friesen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Angelica E. Lang.

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval

All study procedures were approved by the institutional ethics review board.

Informed consent

Participants provided informed consent.

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflict of interest to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 99 KB)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lang, A.E., Friesen, K.B. Defining humeral axial rotation with optical motion capture and inertial measurement units during functional task assessment. Med Biol Eng Comput 61, 2963–2970 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11517-023-02894-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11517-023-02894-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation