Gymnastik- och idrottshögskolan, GIH

Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Minimal marker set for center of mass estimation in running.
Swedish School of Sport and Health Sciences, GIH, Department of Sport and Health Sciences, Laboratory for Biomechanics and Motor Control.
Swedish School of Sport and Health Sciences, GIH, Department of Sport and Health Sciences, Laboratory for Biomechanics and Motor Control.
Swedish School of Sport and Health Sciences, GIH, Department of Sport and Health Sciences, Laboratory for Biomechanics and Motor Control.ORCID iD: 0000-0001-8817-6016
Show others and affiliations
2009 (English)In: Gait & Posture, ISSN 0966-6362, E-ISSN 1879-2219, Vol. 30, no 4, p. 552-555Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

The purpose was to study the validity of a recently proposed method [Forsell C, Halvorsen K. A method for determining minimal sets of markers for the estimation of center of mass, linear and angular momentum. Journal of Biomechanics 2009;42(3):361-5] for estimating the trajectory of the whole-body center of mass (CoM) in the case of running at velocities ranging from 10 to 22 kmh(-1). The method gives an approximation to the CoM using the position of fewer markers on the body than the standard method of tracking each segment of the body. Fourteen male athletes participated. A standard method for determining the CoM from a model of 13 segments and using the position of 36 markers was used as reference method. Leave-one-out cross-validation revealed errors that decreased with increasing number of markers used in the approximative method. Starting from four markers, the error in absolute position of the CoM decreased from 15mm to 3mm in each direction. For the velocity of the CoM the estimation bias was neglectable, and the random error decreased from 0.15 to 0.05 ms(-1). The inter-subject and intra-subject variability in the estimated model parameters increased with increasing number of markers. The method worked well also when applied to running at velocities outside the range of velocities in the data used to determine the model parameters. The results indicate that a model using 10 markers represents a good trade-off between simplicity and accuracy, but users must take into account requirements of their specific applications.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2009. Vol. 30, no 4, p. 552-555
National Category
Medical and Health Sciences Sport and Fitness Sciences
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:gih:diva-984DOI: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2009.06.014PubMedID: 19665896OAI: oai:DiVA.org:gih-984DiVA, id: diva2:236729
Available from: 2009-09-24 Created: 2009-09-24 Last updated: 2018-06-07Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed

Authority records

Halvorsen, KjartanEriksson, MartinTinmark, FredrikNilsson, Johnny

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Halvorsen, KjartanEriksson, MartinTinmark, FredrikNilsson, Johnny
By organisation
Laboratory for Biomechanics and Motor Control
In the same journal
Gait & Posture
Medical and Health SciencesSport and Fitness Sciences

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 474 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf