Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28746383›Full record

ArticlePloS one2017

Validation of functional calibration and strap-down joint drift correction for computing 3D joint angles of knee, hip, and trunk in alpine skiing.

Benedikt Fasel, Jörg Spörri, Pascal Schütz, Silvio Lorenzetti, Kamiar Aminian

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

33 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Editorial: Health and Performance Assessment in Winter Sports.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2021
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Benedikt FaselLaboratory of Movement Analysis and Measurement, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9322-0621
Jörg SpörriDepartment of Sport Science and Kinesiology, University of Salzburg, Hallein-Rif, Austria.
Pascal SchützInstitute for Biomechanics, Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule Zurich, Zurich Switzerland.
Silvio LorenzettiInstitute for Biomechanics, Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule Zurich, Zurich Switzerland.
Kamiar AminianLaboratory of Movement Analysis and Measurement, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To obtain valid 3D joint angles with inertial sensors careful sensor-to-segment calibration (i.e. functional or anatomical calibration) is required and measured angular velocity at each sensor needs to be integrated to obtain segment and joint orientation (i.e. joint angles). Existing functional and anatomical calibration procedures were optimized for gait analysis and calibration movements were impractical to perform in outdoor settings. Thus, the aims of this study were 1) to propose and validate a set of calibration movements that were optimized for alpine skiing and could be performed outdoors and 2) to validate the 3D joint angles of the knee, hip, and trunk during alpine skiing. The proposed functional calibration movements consisted of squats, trunk rotations, hip ad/abductions, and upright standing. The joint drift correction previously proposed for alpine ski racing was improved by adding a second step to reduce separately azimuth drift. The system was validated indoors on a skiing carpet at the maximum belt speed of 21 km/h and for measurement durations of 120 seconds. Calibration repeatability was on average <2.7° (i.e. 3D joint angles changed on average <2.7° for two repeated sets of calibration movements) and all movements could be executed wearing ski-boots. Joint angle precision was <4.9° for all angles and accuracy ranged from -10.7° to 4.2° where the presence of an athlete-specific bias was observed especially for the flexion angle. The improved joint drift correction reduced azimuth drift from over 25° to less than 5°. In conclusion, the system was valid for measuring 3D joint angles during alpine skiing and could be used outdoors. Errors were similar to the values reported in other studies for gait. The system may be well suited for within-athlete analysis but care should be taken for between-athlete analysis because of a possible athlete-specific joint angle bias.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultCalibrationGaitHip JointHumansImaging, Three-DimensionalKnee JointMaleMonitoring, AmbulatoryMovementPostureRange of Motion, ArticularReproducibility of ResultsSkiingTorso

Identifiers

PMID28746383
PMCPMC5528837

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.