0
Technical Brief

Evaluation of Eight Methods for Aligning Orientation of Two Coordinate Systems

[+] Author and Article Information
Hakim Mecheri

Institut de recherche Robert Sauvé en santé
et en sécurité du travail (IRSST),
505 Boulevard De Maisonneuve Ouest,
Montréal, QC H3A 3C2, Canada
e-mail: hakim.mecheri@irsst.qc.ca

Xavier Robert-Lachaine

Institut de recherche Robert Sauvé en santé
et en sécurité du travail (IRSST),
505 Boulevard De Maisonneuve Ouest,
Montréal, QC H3A 3C2, Canada
e-mail: xavier.robert-lachaine@irsst.qc.ca

Christian Larue

Institut de recherche Robert Sauvé en santé
et en sécurité du travail (IRSST),
505 Boulevard De Maisonneuve Ouest,
Montréal, QC H3A 3C2, Canada
e-mail: christian.larue@irsst.qc.ca

André Plamondon

Institut de recherche Robert Sauvé en santé
et en sécurité du travail (IRSST),
505 Boulevard De Maisonneuve Ouest,
Montréal, QC H3A 3C2, Canada
e-mail: andre.plamondon@irsst.qc.ca

Manuscript received December 29, 2015; final manuscript received May 25, 2016; published online June 30, 2016. Assoc. Editor: Pasquale Vena.

J Biomech Eng 138(8), 084501 (Jun 30, 2016) (3 pages) Paper No: BIO-15-1670; doi: 10.1115/1.4033719 History: Received December 29, 2015; Revised May 25, 2016

The aim of this study was to evaluate eight methods for aligning the orientation of two different local coordinate systems. Alignment is very important when combining two different systems of motion analysis. Two of the methods were developed specifically for biomechanical studies, and because there have been at least three decades of algorithm development in robotics, it was decided to include six methods from this field. To compare these methods, an Xsens sensor and two Optotrak clusters were attached to a Plexiglas plate. The first optical marker cluster was fixed on the sensor and 20 trials were recorded. The error of alignment was calculated for each trial, and the mean, the standard deviation, and the maximum values of this error over all trials were reported. One-way repeated measures analysis of variance revealed that the alignment error differed significantly across the eight methods. Post-hoc tests showed that the alignment error from the methods based on angular velocities was significantly lower than for the other methods. The method using angular velocities performed the best, with an average error of 0.17 ± 0.08 deg. We therefore recommend this method, which is easy to perform and provides accurate alignment.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2016 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

The plate used for alignment tests

Tables

Errata

Discussions

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