Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Jul 19:6:1429822.
doi: 10.3389/fspor.2024.1429822. eCollection 2024.

Model variations for tracking the trunk during sports testing in a motion capture lab

Sophia Ulman  1   2 , Alex Loewen  1 , Ashley Erdman  1 , Sylvia Õunpuu  3 , Ross Chafetz  4 , Kirsten Tulchin-Francis  5 , Tishya A L Wren  6
Affiliations

Model variations for tracking the trunk during sports testing in a motion capture lab

Sophia Ulman et al. Front Sports Act Living. .

Abstract

Introduction: As motion capture technology becomes more popular for athlete monitoring and return-to-play evaluation, it is imperative that trunk mechanics are modeled similarly across participants. The purpose of this study was to determine how adjusting marker placement at the sternum or removing potentially occluded markers for purposes of tracking the trunk segment influences trunk kinematics during gait and a drop vertical jump (DVJ).

Methods: Sagittal plane trunk angles of 18 participants were computed for a Definition Model and three trunk model variations. Model variations were specifically chosen to avoid difficulties with placement of the sternum and/or thorax markers in female participants due to sports bra coverage and/or occlusion. Intraclass correlation coefficients were computed per trunk model variation to determine agreement with the Definition Model.

Results: The Mid-Sternum model, in which the xiphoid process marker was adjusted to the midpoint of the xiphoid process and jugular notch, exhibited the least discrepancies and excellent agreement with the Definition Model across both tasks. Alternatively, the No-Thorax model, in which the thorax marker was removed, exhibited the greatest kinematic differences during the DVJ and moderate to excellent agreement across both tasks.

Conclusion: The marker set chosen to track trunk motion during dynamic tasks must include locations that can be placed similarly on all participants. Based on these findings, the xiphoid process marker may be adjusted superiorly prior to the collection of dynamic trials. The recommended model for tracking the trunk segment includes marker placements on the jugular notch, mid-sternum, and 1st and 10th thoracic spinous processes.

Keywords: biomechanics; knee; motion analysis; return-to-sport; trunk.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Tracking model variations. Definition Model (left; marker set for static trial) indicated with black circles and tracking marker set variations indicated with white circles for the Mid-Sternum (M-STRN), No-Thorax, and No-Sternum model variations.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Average sagittal plane trunk angles across trunk model variations during gait and the DVJ. Each solid curve represents the average trunk tilt angle across participants for each model variation. Light dashed curves represent one standard deviation above and below the average curve for each model variation. Standard deviation curves were generated by computing the standard deviation of the trunk tilt angle across participants at each 1% of the gait cycle for each model variation.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Differences in trunk tilt ROM between the Definition Model and each trunk model variation during gait and the DVJ.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Boden BP, Dean GS, Feagin JA, Garrett WE. Mechanisms of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury. Thorofare, NJ: SLACK Incorporated; (2000). - PubMed
    1. Hewett TE, Torg JS, Boden BP. Video analysis of trunk and knee motion during non-contact ACL injury in female athletes: lateral trunk and knee abduction motion are combined components of the injury mechanism. Br J Sports Med. (2009) 43(6):417–22. 10.1136/bjsm.2009.059162 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Zazulak BT, Hewett TE, Reeves NP, Goldberg B, Cholewicki J. Deficits in neuromuscular control of the trunk predict knee injury risk: prospective biomechanical-epidemiologic study. Am J Sports Med. (2007) 35:1123–30. 10.1177/0363546507301585 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bell DR, Smith MD, Pennuto AP, Stiffler MR, Olson ME. Jump-landing mechanics after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a landing error scoring system study. J Athl Train. (2014) 49:435–41. 10.4085/1062-6050-49.3.21 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ulman S, Erdman AL, Loewen A, Õunpuu S, Chafetz R, Wren TA, et al. Trunk and lower-extremity kinematics differ based on step-down tap variation: an assessment of methodology for a return-to-play protocol using motion analysis. Gait Posture. (2022) 98:180–6. 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2022.09.079 - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources