The use of 3D upper body link models to estimate net lumbar loading requires adequate modelling of the trunk segment. Various methods to obtain body segment parameters and partition the trunk were contrasted to evaluate their impact on L5/S1 net joint moments for some simple and complex lifting tasks. Appropriate combinations of body segment parameters and trunk partitioning reduced L5/S1 net joint moment errors, especially for subjects characterised by a larger abdomen. Trunk modelling procedures considering the variability inherent to trunk morphology and non-rigidity should be preferred for inverse dynamic analysis of lifting through an upper body link model.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ColeG. K.NiggB. M.RonskyJ. L.YeadonM. R. (1993). Application of the joint coordinate system to three-dimensional joint attitude and movement representation: A standardization proposal. Journal of Biomechanical Engineering, 115, 344–349.
2.
De LevaP. (1996). Adjustments of Zatsiorsky-Seluyanov's segment inertia parameters. Journal of Biomechanics, 29(9), 1223–1230.
3.
ErdmannW. S. (1997). Geometric and inertial data of the trunk in adult males. Journal of Biomechanics, 30 (7), 679–688.
4.
HatzeH. (1980). A mathematical model for the computational determination of parameter values of anthropomorphic segments. Journal of Biomechanics, 13, 833–843.
5.
LarivièreC.GagnonD. (1999a). The influence of trunk modelling in 3D biomechanical analysis of simple and complex lifting tasks. Clinical Biomechanics, 14 (7), 449–461.
6.
LarivièreC.GagnonD. (1999b). The L5/S1 joint moment sensitivity to measurement errors in dynamic 3D multisegment lifting models. Human Movement Science, 18, 573–587.
7.
LarivièreC.GagnonD. (1998). Comparison between two dynamic methods to estimate triaxial net reaction moments at the L5/S1 joint during lifting. Clinical Biomechanics, 13 (1), 36–47.
8.
O'connorP. D.RobinsonM. E.ShirleyF. R.MacMillanM. (1993). The effect of marker placement deviations on spinal range of motion determined by video motion analyis. Physical Therapy, 73 (7), 478–483.
9.
ParksJ. L. (1959). An electromyographic and mechanical analysis of selected abdominal exercises. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan.
10.
PearsallD. J.ReidJ. G.RossR. (1994). Inertial properties of the human trunk of males determined from magnetic resonance imaging. Annals of Biomedical Engineering, 22, 692–706.
11.
PlagenhoefS. (1971). Patterns of human motion: A cinematographic analysis. Englewoods Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
12.
PlamondonA.GagnonM.DesjardinsP. (1996). Validation of two 3-D segment models to calculate the net reaction forces and moments at the L5/S1 joint in lifting. Clinical Biomechanics, 11 (2), 101–110.
13.
YeadonM. R. (1990). The simulation of aerial movement-II. A mathematical inertia model of the human body. Journal of Biomechanics, 23 (1), 67–74.
14.
ZatsiorskyV. M.SeluyanovV. N.ChugunovaL. G. (1990). Methods of determining mass-inertial characteristics of human body segments. In ChernyiG. C.RedigerS. A., Advances in science and technology in the USSR, contemporary problems in biomechanics (pp. 272–291). Boston, MA: CRC Press.
