Technical Brief

A Refined Technique to Calculate Finite Helical Axes From Rigid Body Trackers

[+] Author and Article Information
Stewart D. McLachlin

Department of Mechanical and Materials Engineering, Western University,
London N6A 5B9 ON, Canada

Louis M. Ferreira

Department of Mechanical and Materials Engineering,
Western University,
London N6A 5B9 ON, Canada

Cynthia E. Dunning

Department of Mechanical and Materials Engineering,
Western University,
London N6A 5B9 ON, Canada
e-mail: cdunning@uwo.ca

1Corresponding author.

Manuscript received April 21, 2014; final manuscript received August 8, 2014; accepted manuscript posted August 27, 2014; published online November 5, 2014. Assoc. Editor: Guy M. Genin.

J Biomech Eng 136(12), 124506 (Dec 01, 2014) (4 pages) Paper No: BIO-14-1174; doi: 10.1115/1.4028413 History: Received April 21, 2014; Revised August 08, 2014; Accepted August 27, 2014

Finite helical axes (FHAs) are a potentially effective tool for joint kinematic analysis. Unfortunately, no straightforward guidelines exist for calculating accurate FHAs using prepackaged six degree-of-freedom (6DOF) rigid body trackers. Thus, this study aimed to: (1) describe a protocol for calculating FHA parameters from 6DOF rigid body trackers using the screw matrix and (2) to maximize the number of accurate FHAs generated from a given data set using a moving window analysis. Four Optotrak® Smart Markers were used as the rigid body trackers, two moving and two fixed, at different distances from the hinge joint of a custom-machined jig. 6DOF pose information was generated from 51 static positions of the jig rotated and fixed in 0.5 deg increments up to 25 deg. Output metrics included the FHA direction cosines, the rotation about the FHA, the translation along the axis, and the intercept of the FHA with the plane normal to the jig's hinge joint. FHA metrics were calculated using the relative tracker rotation from the starting position, and using a moving window analysis to define a minimum acceptable rotational displacement between the moving tracker data points. Data analysis found all FHA rotations calculated from the starting position were within 0.15 deg of the prescribed jig rotation. FHA intercepts were most stable when determined using trackers closest to the hinge axis. Increasing the moving window size improved the FHA direction cosines and center of rotation accuracy. Window sizes larger than 2 deg had an intercept deviation of less than 1 mm. Furthermore, compared to the 0 deg window size, the 2 deg window had a 90% improvement in FHA intercept precision while generating almost an equivalent number of FHA axes. This work identified a solution to improve FHA calculations for biomechanical researchers looking to describe changes in 3D joint motion.

Copyright © 2014 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.


Blankevoort, L., Huiskes, R., and de Lange, A., 1990, “Helical axes of Passive Knee Joint Motions,” J. Biomech., 23(12), pp. 1219–1229. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Kettler, A., Marin, F., Sattelmayer, G., Mohr, M., Mannel, H., Dürselen, L., Claes, L., and Wilke, H. J., 2004, “Finite Helical Axes of Motion are a Useful Tool to Describe the Three-Dimensional in Vitro Kinematics of the Intact, Injured and Stabilised Spine,” Eur. Spine J., 13(6), pp. 553–559. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Duck, T. R., Dunning, C. E., Armstrong, A. D., Johnson, J. A., and King, G. J., 2003, “Application of Screw Displacement Axes to Quantify Elbow Instability,” Clin. Biomech., 18(4), pp. 303–310. [CrossRef]
Graf, E. S., Wright, I. C., and Stefanyshyn, D. J., 2012, “Effect of Relative Marker Movement on the Calculation of the Foot Torsion Axis Using a Combined Cardan Angle and Helical Axis Approach,” Comput. Math. Methods Med., 2012, p. 368050. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Woltring, H., Huiskes, R., and de Lange, A., 1985, “Finite Centroid and Helical Axis Estimation From Noisy Landmark Measurements in the Study of Human Joint Kinematics,” J. Biomech., 18(5), pp. 379–389. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Spoor, C., and Veldpaus, F., 1980, “Rigid Body Motion Calculated From Spatial Co-ordinates of Markers,” J. Biomech., 13(4), pp. 391–393. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Kinzel, G., Hall, A., and Hillberry, B., 1972, “Measurement of the Total Motion Between Two Body Segments—I. Analytical Development,” J. Biomech., 5(1), pp. 93–105. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Metzger, M. F., Faruk Senan, N. A., O'Reilly, O. M., and Lotz, J. C., 2010, “Minimizing Errors Associated With Calculating the Location of the Helical Axis for Spinal Motions,” J. Biomech., 43(14), pp. 2822–2829. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Markley, F., 1988, “Attitude Determination Using Vector Observations and the Singular Value Decomposition,” J. Astronaut. Sci., 36(3), pp. 245–258.
Beggs, J. S., 1983, Kinematics, Hemisphere, Washington, DC.
Crawford, N. R., 2006, “Technical Note: Determining and Displaying the Instantaneous Axis of Rotation of the Spine,” World Spine J., 1(1), pp. 53–56.
Ferreira, L. M., King, G. J. W., and Johnson, J. A., 2011, “Motion-derived Coordinate Systems Reduce Inter-subject Variability of Elbow Flexion Kinematics,” J. Orthop. Res., 29(4), pp. 596–601. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Craig, J., 2005, Introduction to Robotics: Mechanics and Control, Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Duck, T. R., Ferreira, L. M., King, G. J. W., and Johnson, J. A., 2004, “Assessment of Screw Displacement Axis Accuracy and Repeatability for Joint Kinematic Description Using an Electromagnetic Tracking Device,” J. Biomech., 37(1), pp. 163–167. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Schmidt, J., Berg, D., Ploeg, H., and Ploeg, L., 2009, “Precision, Repeatability and Accuracy of Optotrak® Optical Motion Tracking Systems,” Int. J. Exp. Comput. Biomech., 1(1), pp. 114–127. [CrossRef]
Bottlang, M., Marsh, J. L., and Brown, T. D., 1998, “Factors Influencing Accuracy of Screw Displacement Axis Detection With a DC-based Electromagnetic Tracking System,” ASME J. Biomech. Eng., 120(3), pp. 431–435. [CrossRef]


Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Left: A custom machined jig that was capable of incremental planar rotations of 0.5 deg about a fixed hinge joint was used. Four Optotrak Smart Markers (rigid body trackers) were attached, two to the moving portion and two to the fixed portion (Body2_far not shown). Right: Transformation [t] matrices of a moving tracker Body1 with respect a reference Body2 (either a fixed tracker or the camera) were determined by the Optotrak software. The screw [s] matrix was then calculated for varying displacements (i.e., 1 → 2).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Root mean square error (RMSE) of the X–Y intercept position in millimeters versus the moving window size (in degrees)



Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In