ArticleFrontiers in sports and active living2024
Model variations for tracking the trunk during sports testing in a motion capture lab.
Article in Frontiers in sports and active living, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: As motion capture technology becomes more popular for athlete monitoring and return-to-play evaluation, it is imperative that trunk mechanics are modeled similarly across participants. The purpose of this study was to determine how adjusting marker placement at the sternum or removing potentially occluded markers for purposes of tracking the trunk segment influences trunk kinematics during gait and a drop vertical jump (DVJ). Methods: Sagittal plane trunk angles of 18 participants were computed for a Definition Model and three trunk model variations. Model variations were specifically chosen to avoid difficulties with placement of the sternum and/or thorax markers in female participants due to sports bra coverage and/or occlusion. Intraclass correlation coefficients were computed per trunk model variation to determine agreement with the Definition Model. Results: The Mid-Sternum model, in which the xiphoid process marker was adjusted to the midpoint of the xiphoid process and jugular notch, exhibited the least discrepancies and excellent agreement with the Definition Model across both tasks. Alternatively, the No-Thorax model, in which the thorax marker was removed, exhibited the greatest kinematic differences during the DVJ and moderate to excellent agreement across both tasks. Conclusion: The marker set chosen to track trunk motion during dynamic tasks must include locations that can be placed similarly on all participants. Based on these findings, the xiphoid process marker may be adjusted superiorly prior to the collection of dynamic trials. The recommended model for tracking the trunk segment includes marker placements on the jugular notch, mid-sternum, and 1st and 10th thoracic spinous processes.
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.