ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2025
Joint Angle Trajectories Are Robust to Segment Length Estimation Methods in Human Reaching.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2025. 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
- Updated by
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Quantitative movement analysis is increasingly used to assess motor deficits, but joint angle calculations depend on assumptions about limb segment lengths. These lengths are often estimated from average anthropometric proportions rather than measured directly. The extent to which such assumptions influence joint angle accuracy and variability remains unclear. Methods: In prior studies, we recorded reaching movements in nine healthy adults using active-marker motion capture system. In this study, we computed arm joint angles with a dynamic model scaled using either measured segment lengths (Individual method) or proportions based on body height (Average method). We compared segment proportions and the variability in joint angle trajectories arising from segment length assumptions (between-subject variability) with within-subject variability across repeated movements. Results: Segment length proportions remained unchanged despite increases in population height. Joint angle trajectories derived from the two scaling methods were very similar. Segment length assumptions had only minor effects on joint angle amplitudes, primarily due to kinematic redundancy, and these effects were substantially smaller than the within-subject variability observed across repeated movements in most individuals. Importantly, while segment length estimates shifted absolute joint angle amplitudes, they did not alter the shape of angular trajectories. Conclusions/Significance: Morphological variability in segment lengths contributes less to joint angle variability than the variability expressed by individuals across repeated movements. This indicates that movement variability is driven more by how the nervous system selects among redundant motor solutions than by body morphology. These findings suggest that clinical assessments of range of motion and movement quality are robust to the method of segment length estimation, supporting the reliability of motion capture-based assessments in both research and clinical settings.
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.