The purpose of this study was to compare two-and three-dimensional motion analysis for evaluation of the sit-to-stand movement. Subjects consisted of four healthy young men. Reflective markers were placed on right acromial process, mid-iliac crest, greater trochanter, lateral femoral epicondyle, lateral malleolus, and 5th metatarsal head, to define the trunk, pelvis, hip, knee, and ankle angles. The instrumentation used included three synchronized video cameras, one for two-dimensional and the others for three-dimensional analysis. Videotapes were digitized and analyzed using the Peak Performance Motion Analysis System. The sit-to-stand movement was divided into three phases: forward flexion, momentum transfer, and upward extension. Paired t-tests and Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients were used to compare the temporal and joint angle data between the two-and three-dimensional methods. The results showed that the two methods were similar in determining the onset and commencement of all phases (all t<4.30, p>0.l). For most joint angles, the correlations between the two methods were high in all phases (all r>0.96, p<0.00l), the only exception was the pelvis in the momentum transfer and upward extension phases (r=0.150, 0.573, both p<0.00l). Differences in angle measurement between the two methods were<3° for most joints, although the discrepancy between the two methods was 12.90°(48.81%) for the pelvis and 9.47°(17.72%) for the hip. Our findings indicate that the two-and three-dimensional methods provide equivalent information in measuring the temporal and angular data of the trunk and lower extremities, but not for the pelvis, in the sit-to-stand movement.
The purpose of this study was to compare two-and three-dimensional motion analysis for evaluation of the sit-to-stand movement. Subjects consisted of four healthy young men. Reflective markers were placed on right acromial process, mid-iliac crest, greater trochanter, lateral femoral epicondyle, lateral malleolus, and 5th metatarsal head, to define the trunk, pelvis, hip, knee, and ankle angles. The instrumentation used included three synchronized video cameras, one for two-dimensional and the others for three-dimensional analysis. Videotapes were digitized and analyzed using the Peak Performance Motion Analysis System. The sit-to-stand movement was divided into three phases: forward flexion, momentum transfer, and upward extension. Paired t-tests and Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients were used to compare the temporal and joint angle data between the two-and three-dimensional methods. The results showed that the two methods were similar in determining the onset and commencement of all phases (all t<4.30, p>0.l). For most joint angles, the correlations between the two methods were high in all phases (all r>0.96, p<0.00l), the only exception was the pelvis in the momentum transfer and upward extension phases (r=0.150, 0.573, both p<0.00l). Differences in angle measurement between the two methods were<3° for most joints, although the discrepancy between the two methods was 12.90°(48.81%) for the pelvis and 9.47°(17.72%) for the hip. Our findings indicate that the two-and three-dimensional methods provide equivalent information in measuring the temporal and angular data of the trunk and lower extremities, but not for the pelvis, in the sit-to-stand movement.
為了持續優化網站功能與使用者體驗,本網站將Cookies分析技術用於網站營運、分析和個人化服務之目的。
若您繼續瀏覽本網站,即表示您同意本網站使用Cookies。