| Autor: |
Moore KD; Health Effects Laboratory Division, National Institute for Occupational Safety & Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1095 Willowdale Rd., Morgantown West Virginia 26505, USA., Hawke AL; Health Effects Laboratory Division, National Institute for Occupational Safety & Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1095 Willowdale Rd., Morgantown West Virginia 26505, USA., Carey RE; Health Effects Laboratory Division, National Institute for Occupational Safety & Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1095 Willowdale Rd., Morgantown West Virginia 26505, USA., Wu JZ; Health Effects Laboratory Division, National Institute for Occupational Safety & Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1095 Willowdale Rd., Morgantown West Virginia 26505, USA., Breloff SP; Health Effects Laboratory Division, National Institute for Occupational Safety & Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1095 Willowdale Rd., Morgantown West Virginia 26505, USA. |
| Abstrakt: |
The anterior and posterior iliac spine markers frequently used to define the pelvis, are commonly occluded during three-dimensional (3D) motion capture. The occlusion of these markers leads to the use of various tracking marker configurations on the pelvis, which affect kinematic results. The purpose of this investigation was to examine the agreement of CODA pelvis kinematic results when two different tracking marker configurations were used during roofing tasks. 3D motion data were collected on seven male subjects while mimicking two roofing tasks. Hip joint angles (HJAs) were computed using the CODA pelvis with two different tracking marker configurations, the trochanter tracking method (TTM), and virtual pelvis tracking method (VPTM). Agreement between tracking marker configurations was assessed using cross-correlations, bivariate correlations, mean absolute differences (MADs), and Bland-Altman (BA) plots. The correlations displayed no time lag and strong agreement (all r > 0.83) between the HJA from the VPTM and TTM, suggesting the timing occurrence of variables are comparable between the two tracking marker configurations. The MAD between the VPTM and TTM displayed magnitude differences, but most of the differences were within a clinically acceptable range. Caution should still be used when comparing kinematic results between various tracking marker configurations, as differences exist. |
