Research Papers

Optimal Estimation of Anthropometric Parameters for Quantifying Multisegment Trunk Kinetics

[+] Author and Article Information
Alireza Noamani

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
University of Alberta,
Edmonton T6G 1H9, AB, Canada
e-mail: noamani@ualberta.ca

Albert H. Vette

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
University of Alberta,
Edmonton T6G 1H9, AB, Canada;
Glenrose Rehabilitation Hospital,
Alberta Health Services,
10230 111 Avenue NW,
Edmonton T5G 0B7, AB, Canada
e-mail: vette@ualberta.ca

Richard Preuss

School of Physical & Occupational Therapy,
McGill University,
Montreal H3G 1Y5, QC, Canada
e-mail: richard.preuss@mcgill.ca

Milos R. Popovic

Rehabilitation Engineering Laboratory,
Lyndhurst Centre,
Toronto Rehabilitation Institute–University
Health Network,
Toronto M4G 3V9, ON, Canada;
Institute of Biomaterials and
Biomedical Engineering,
University of Toronto,
Toronto M5S 3G9, ON, Canada
e-mail: milos.popovic@utoronto.ca

Hossein Rouhani

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
University of Alberta,
Edmonton T6G 1H9, AB, Canada
e-mail: hrouhani@ualberta.ca

1Corresponding author.

Manuscript received August 8, 2017; final manuscript received May 6, 2018; published online June 21, 2018. Assoc. Editor: Joel D Stitzel.

J Biomech Eng 140(10), 101003 (Jun 21, 2018) (10 pages) Paper No: BIO-17-1348; doi: 10.1115/1.4040247 History: Received August 08, 2017; Revised May 06, 2018

Kinetics assessment of the human head-arms-trunk (HAT) complex via a multisegment model is a useful tool for objective clinical evaluation of several pathological conditions. Inaccuracies in body segment parameters (BSPs) are a major source of uncertainty in the estimation of the joint moments associated with the multisegment HAT. Given the large intersubject variability, there is currently no comprehensive database for the estimation of BSPs for the HAT. We propose a nonlinear, multistep, optimization-based, noninvasive method for estimating individual-specific BSPs and calculating joint moments in a multisegment HAT model. Eleven nondisabled individuals participated in a trunk-bending experiment and their body motion was recorded using cameras and a force plate. A seven-segment model of the HAT was reconstructed for each participant. An initial guess of the BSPs was obtained by individual-specific scaling of the BSPs calculated from the male visible human (MVH) images. The intersegmental moments were calculated using both bottom-up and top-down inverse dynamics approaches. Our proposed method adjusted the scaled BSPs and center of pressure (COP) offsets to estimate optimal individual-specific BSPs that minimize the difference between the moments obtained by top-down and bottom-up inverse dynamics approaches. Our results indicate that the proposed method reduced the error in the net joint moment estimation (defined as the difference between the net joint moment calculated via bottom-up and top-down approaches) by 79.3% (median among participants). Our proposed method enables an optimized estimation of individual-specific BSPs and, consequently, a less erroneous assessment of the three-dimensional (3D) kinetics of a multisegment HAT model.

Copyright © 2018 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.


Lund, T. , Nydegger, T. , Schlenzka, D. , and Oxland, T. R. , 2002, “ Three-Dimensional Motion Patterns During Active Bending in Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain,” Spine, 27(17), pp. 1865–1874. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Nishida, M. , Nagura, T. , Fujita, N. , Hosogane, N. , Tsuji, T. , Nakamura, M. , Matsumoto, M. , and Watanabe, K. , 2017, “ Position of the Major Curve Influences Asymmetrical Trunk Kinematics During Gait in Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis,” Gait Posture, 51, pp. 142–148. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Lalumiere, M. , Gagnon, D. H. , Routhier, F. , Bouyer, L. , and Desroches, G. , 2014, “ Upper Extremity Kinematics and Kinetics During the Performance of a Stationary Wheelie in Manual Wheelchair Users With a Spinal Cord Injury,” J. Appl. Biomech., 30(4), pp. 574–580. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Konz, R. J. , Fatone, S. , Stine, R. L. , Ganju, A. , Gard, S. A. , and Ondra, S. L. , 2006, “ A Kinematic Model to Assess Spinal Motion During Walking,” Spine, 31(24), pp. 898–906. [CrossRef]
Schmid, S. , Bruhin, B. , Ignasiak, D. , Romkes, J. , Taylor, W. R. , Ferguson, S. J. , Brunner, R. , and Lorenzetti, S. , 2017, “ Spinal Kinematics During Gait in Healthy Individuals Across Different Age Groups,” Hum. Mov. Sci., 54, pp. 73–81. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Leardini, A. , Biagi, F. , Merlo, A. , Belvedere, C. , and Bendetti, M. G. , 2011, “ Multi-Segment Trunk Kinematics During Locomotion and Elementary Exercises,” Clin. Biomech., 26(6), pp. 562–571. [CrossRef]
Vette, A. H. , Yoshida, T. , Thrasher, T. A. , Masani, K. , and Popovic, M. R. , 2012, “ A Comprehensive Three-Dimensional Dynamic Model of the Human Head and Trunk for Estimating Lumbar and Cervical Joint Torques and Forces From Upper Body Kinematics,” Med. Eng. Phys., 34(5), pp. 640–649. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Barbado, D. , Moreside, J. , and Vera-garcia, F. J. , 2017, “ Reliability and Repetition Effect of the Center of Pressure and Kinematics Parameters That Characterize Trunk Postural Control During Unstable Sitting Test,” PMR, 9(3), pp. 219–230. [CrossRef]
Preuss, R. A. , and Popovic, M. R. , 2010, “ Three-Dimensional Spine Kinematics During Multidirectional, Target-Directed Trunk Movement in Sitting,” J. Electromyogr. Kinesiol., 20(5), pp. 823–832. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Christian, L. , and Denis, G. , 1998, “ A Comparison Between Two Dynamic Methods to Estimate Triaxial Net Reaction Moments at the L5/S1 Joint During Lifting,” Clin. Biomech., 13(1), pp. 36–47. [CrossRef]
Riemer, R. , and Hsiao-Wecksler, E. T. , 2009, “ Improving Net Joint Torque Calculations Through a Two-Step Optimization Method for Estimating Body Segment Parameters,” ASME J. Biomech. Eng., 131(1), p. 11007.
Riemer, R. , Hsiao-Wecksler, E. T. , and Zhang, X. , 2008, “ Uncertainties in Inverse Dynamics Solutions: A Comprehensive Analysis and an Application to Gait,” Gait Posture, 27(4), pp. 578–588. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Pearsal, D. J. , Reid, J. G. , and Rosst, R. , 1994, “ Inertial Properties of the Human Trunk of Males Determined From Magnetic Resonance Imaging,” Ann. Biomed. Eng., 22(6), pp. 692–706. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Leva, P. De , 1996, “ Adjusments to Zatiorsky-Seluyanov's Segment Inertia Parameters,” J. Biomech., 29(9), pp. 1223–1230. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Bruno, A. G. , Mokhtarzadeh, H. , Allaire, B. T. , Velie, K. R. , De Paolis Kaluza, M. C. , Anderson, D. E. , and Bouxsein, M. L. , 2017, “ Incorporation of CT-Based Measurements of Trunk Anatomy Into Subject-Specific Musculoskeletal Models of the Spine Influences Vertebral Loading Predictions,” J. Orthop. Res., 35(10), pp. 2164–2173. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Durkin, J. L. , and Dowling, J. J. , 2003, “ Analysis of Body Segment Parameter Differences Between Four Human Populations and the Estimation Errors of Four Popular Mathematical Models,” ASME J. Biomech. Eng., 125(4), pp. 515–522. [CrossRef]
Hinrichs, R. N. , 1985, “ Regression Equations to Predict Segmental Moments Inertia From Anthropometric Measurements: Extension of the Data of Chandler et al. (1975),” J. Biomech., 18(8), pp. 621–624. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Chen, S. , Hsieh, H. , Lu, T. , and Tseng, C. , 2011, “ A Method for Estimating Subject-Specific Body Segment Inertial Parameters in Human Movement Analysis,” Gait Posture, 33(4), pp. 695–700. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Pataky, T. C. , Zatsiorsky, V. M. , and Challis, J. H. , 2003, “ A Simple Method to Determine Body Segment Masses In Vivo: Reliability, Accuracy and Sensitivity Analysis,” Clin. Biomech., 18(4), pp. 364–368. [CrossRef]
Dumas, R. , Nicol, E. , and Chèze, L. , 2007, “ Influence of the 3D Inverse Dynamic Method on the Joint Forces and Moments During Gait,” ASME J. Biomech. Eng., 129(5), pp. 786–790. [CrossRef]
Schache, A. G. , and Baker, R. , 2007, “ On the Expression of Joint Moments During Gait,” Gait Posture, 25(3), pp. 440–452. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Holden, J. P. , and Stanhope, S. J. , 1998, “ The Effect of Variation in Knee Center Location Estimates on Net Knee Joint Moments,” Gait Posture, 7(1), pp. 1–6. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Kingma, I. , De Looze, M. P. , Toussaint, H. M. , Klijnsma, H. G. , and Bruijnen, T. B. M. , 1996, “ Validation of a Full Body 3-D Dynamic Linked Segment Model,” Hum. Mov. Sci., 15(6), pp. 833–860. [CrossRef]
Plamondon, A. , Gagnon, M. , and Desjardins, P. , 1996, “ Validation of Two 3-D Segment Models to Calculate the Net Reaction Forces and Moments at the L5/S1 Joint in Lifting,” Clin. Biomech., 11(2), pp. 101–110. [CrossRef]
Larivière, C. , Gagnon, D. , and Loisel, P. , 2002, “ A Biomechanical Comparison of Lifting Techniques Between Subjects With and Without Chronic Low Back Pain During Freestyle Lifting and Lowering Tasks,” Clin. Biomech., 17(2), pp. 89–98. [CrossRef]
Hendershot, B. D. , and Wolf, E. J. , 2014, “ Three-Dimensional Joint Reaction Forces and Moments at the Low Back During Over-Ground Walking in Persons With Unilateral Lower-Extremity Amputation,” Clin. Biomech., 29(3), pp. 235–242. [CrossRef]
Desjardins, P. , Plamondon, A. , and Gagnon, M. , 1998, “ Sensitivity Analysis of Segment Models to Estimate the Net Reaction Moments at the L5/S1 Joint in Lifting,” Med. Eng. Phys., 20(2), pp. 153–158. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Robert, T. , Chèze, L. , Dumas, R. , and Verriest, J. P. , 2007, “ Validation of Net joint loads Calculated by Inverse Dynamics in Case of Complex Movements: Application to Balance Recovery Movements,” J. Biomech., 40(11), pp. 2450–2456. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Vaughan, C. L. , Andrews, J. G. , and Hay, J. G. , 1982, “ Selection of Body Segment Parameters by Optimization Methods,” ASME J. Biomech. Eng., 104(1), pp. 38–44. [CrossRef]
Kuo, A. D. , 1998, “ A Least-Squares Estimation Approach to Improving the Precision of Inverse Dynamics Computations,” ASME J. Biomech. Eng., 120(1), pp. 149–159. [CrossRef]
Cahouet, V. , Luc, M. , and David, A. , 2002, “ Static Optimal Estimation of Joint Accelerations for Inverse Dynamics Problem Solution,” J. Biomech, 35(11), pp. 1507–1513. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Cappozzo, A. , 2002, “ Minimum Measured-Input Models for the Assessment of Motor Ability,” J. Biomech, 35(4), pp. 437–446. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Mazzà, C. , and Cappozzo, A. , 2004, “ An Optimization Algorithm for Human Joint Angle Time-History Generation Using External Force Data,” Ann. Biomed. Eng., 32(5), pp. 764–772. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Riemer, R. , and Hsiao-Wecksler, E. T. , 2008, “ Improving Joint Torque Calculations: Optimization-Based Inverse Dynamics to Reduce the Effect of Motion Errors,” J. Biomech., 41(7), pp. 1503–1509. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Spitzer, V. , Ackerman, M. J. , Scherzinger, A. L. , and Whitlock, D. , 1996, “ The Visible Human Male: A Technical Report,” J. Am. Med. Inf. Assoc., 3(2), pp. 118–130. [CrossRef]
Vette, A. H. , Yoshida, T. , Thrasher, T. A. , Masani, K. , and Popovic, M. R. , 2011, “ A Complete, Non-Lumped, and Verifiable Set of Upper Body Segment Parameters for Three-Dimensional Dynamic Modeling,” Med. Eng. Phys., 33(1), pp. 70–79. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Steven, T. , and McCaw, P. D. , 1995, “ Errors in Alignment of Center of Pressure and Foot Coordinates Affect Predicted Lower Extremity Torques,” J. Biomech., 28(8), pp. 985–988. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Mahallati, S. , Rouhani, H. , Preuss, R. , Masani, K. , and Popovic, M. R. , 2016, “ Multisegment Kinematics of the Spinal Column: Soft Tissue Artifacts Assessment,” ASME J. Biomech. Eng., 138(7), p. 071003. [CrossRef]
Rouhani, H. , Mahallati, S. , Preuss, R. , Masani, K. , and Popovic, M. R. , 2015, “ Sensitivity of Intersegmental Angles of the Spinal Column to Errors Due to Marker Misplacement,” ASME J. Biomech. Eng., 137(7), p. 074502. [CrossRef]
Hendershot, B. D. , and Wolf, E. J. , 2015, “ Persons With Unilateral Transfemoral Amputation Have Altered Lumbosacral Kinetics During Sitting and Standing Movements,” Gait Posture, 42(2), pp. 204–209. [CrossRef] [PubMed]


Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Targets for the trunk-bending task were placed at participant-specific distances and heights representing an angular motion of 45 deg of the trunk

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Markers were placed over the participant's spinal column to form a seven-segment trunk model: Head and neck (HD), upper thoracic (UT), midupper thoracic (MUT), midlower thoracic (MLT), lower thoracic (LT), upper lumbar (UL), lower lumbar (LL), and sacral (SC) segments. The segment-fixed frames for the trunk segments were defined by a marker placed centrally on the spinous process of the caudal vertebra and two markers placed 5 cm laterally of the spinous process of the rostral vertebra. The pelvis-fixed frame was defined by the markers placed on anatomical landmarks of the pelvis. In addition, the local frames for the different segments of the HAT model are shown. For the trunk segments (LL to HD), only one frame is illustrated as an example; the frames for the other trunk segments were defined similarly.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

The two-step optimization algorithm was used to minimize the error between top-down and bottom-up inverse dynamics approaches. The first step optimized the offset error of the COP measured by the force plate. The range of variation of the COP offsets was constrained with lower and upper bounds of [−1 cm, +1 cm] based on previous studies [12,37]. The second step used the scaled anthropometric data from the MVH and the corrected COP from the previous step to find optimized individual-specific COM, JCR, and mass of each segment. Lower and upper bounds were defined for the normalized mass, COM and JCRs of the segments. Inequality constraints were applied to the position vectors from the reflective marker on the spinous process to the corresponding JCR and COM of each segment for obtaining anatomically sensible position vectors (see Eqs. (8) and (9)). Moreover, an equality constraint was applied to the mass since the total mass of the participant should be preserved. At each step, optimization constraints were used as the criterion.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

The joint moments calculated via the bottom-up (solid lines) and the top-down (dashed lines) approaches. Black lines indicate the moments obtained before optimization and the red lines indicate the moments obtained after optimization. As such, we expect that the distances between the solid and dashed lines decrease after optimization. Normalized joint moments with respect to the body weight (BW) and trunk height (TH) (expressed in BW × TH%), are depicted for a representative participant. Results are presented for moments in the sagittal, coronal, and transverse planes at all joints. The scale is different for moments in the sagittal, coronal, and transverse planes are different.



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

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