ArticleScientific reports2023
A frame orientation optimisation method for consistent interpretation of kinematic signals.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Six-degree-of-freedom knee motion during treadmill walking in mechanically and kinematically aligned TKA.Scientific reports · 2026Trial
- Transfer of patients' tibiofemoral kinematics and loads to a six-degree-of-freedom (6-DOF) joint simulator under consideration of virtual ligaments.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- A reproducible representation of healthy tibiofemoral kinematics during stair descent using REFRAME - part I: REFRAME foundations and validation.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Conceptual foundations of a REFRAME-based approach to discriminate across total knee implant designs based on the positions of functional centres of rotation.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Comparison of gait deviation index (GDI) and gait variability index (GVI) measured by marker-based and markerless motion capture systems in children with cerebral palsy (CP).Gait & posture · 2025Article
- Assessing the implementation of the REference FRame Alignment MEthod to compare differences in tibio-femoral kinematics during gait using five different marker sets.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Article
- A reproducible representation of healthy tibiofemoral kinematics during stair descent using REFRAME - Part II: Exploring optimisation criteria and inter-subject differences.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Comparison of IMU-Based Knee Kinematics with and without Harness Fixation against an Optical Marker-Based System.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- A new method called MiKneeSoTA to minimize knee soft-tissue artifacts in kinematic analysis.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Validation of Inertial-Measurement-Unit-Based Ex Vivo Knee Kinematics during a Loaded Squat before and after Reference-Frame-Orientation Optimisation.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In clinical movement biomechanics, kinematic data are often depicted as waveforms (i.e. signals), characterising the motion of articulating joints. Clinically meaningful interpretations of the underlying joint kinematics, however, require an objective understanding of whether two different kinematic signals actually represent two different underlying physical movement patterns of the joint or not. Previously, the accuracy of IMU-based knee joint angles was assessed using a six-degrees-of-freedom joint simulator guided by fluoroscopy-based signals. Despite implementation of sensor-to-segment corrections, observed errors were clearly indicative of cross-talk, and thus inconsistent reference frame orientations. Here, we address these limitations by exploring how minimisation of dedicated cost functions can harmonise differences in frame orientations, ultimately facilitating consistent interpretation of articulating joint kinematic signals. In this study, we present and investigate a frame orientation optimisation method (FOOM) that aligns reference frames and corrects for cross-talk errors, hence yielding a consistent interpretation of the underlying movement patterns. By executing optimised rotational sequences, thus producing angular corrections around each axis, we enable a reproducible frame definition and hence an approach for reliable comparison of kinematic data. Using this approach, root-mean-square errors between the previously collected (1) IMU-based data using functional joint axes, and (2) simulated fluoroscopy-based data relying on geometrical axes were almost entirely eliminated from an initial range of 0.7°-5.1° to a mere 0.1°-0.8°. Our results confirm that different local segment frames can yield different kinematic patterns, despite following the same rotation convention, and that appropriate alignment of reference frame orientation can successfully enable consistent kinematic interpretation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.