scholarly journals Biomechanical model for evaluation of pediatric upper extremity joint dynamics during wheelchair mobility

2014 ◽  
Vol 47 (1) ◽  
pp. 269-276 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alyssa J. Schnorenberg ◽  
Brooke A. Slavens ◽  
Mei Wang ◽  
Lawrence C. Vogel ◽  
Peter A. Smith ◽  
...  
Author(s):  
Ismael Payo ◽  
Enrique Perez-Rizo ◽  
Alejandro Iglesias ◽  
Beatriz Sanchez-Sanchez ◽  
Maria Torres-Lacomba ◽  
...  

2012 ◽  
Vol 17 (10) ◽  
pp. 1144-1156 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joan Lobo-Prat ◽  
Josep M. Font-Llagunes ◽  
Cristina Gómez-Pérez ◽  
Josep Medina-Casanovas ◽  
Rosa M. Angulo-Barroso

Author(s):  
N. Bhagchandani ◽  
B. Slavens ◽  
Mei Wang ◽  
G. Harris

2012 ◽  
Vol 112 (9) ◽  
pp. 1600-1611 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chris A. McGibbon

This paper presents and tests a framework for encoding joint dynamics into energy states using kinematic and kinetic knee joint sensor data and demonstrates how to use this information to predict the future energy state (torque and velocity requirements) of the joint without a priori knowledge of the activity sequence. The intended application is for enhancing micro-controlled prosthetics by making use of the embedded sensory potential of artificial limbs and classical mechanical principles of a prosthetic joint to report instantaneous energy state and most probable next energy state. When applied to the knee during preferred and fast speed walking in 8 human subjects (66 preferred-speed trials and 50 fast-speed trials), it was found that joint energy states could be consistently sequenced (75% consensus) according to mechanical energy transference conditions and subsequences appeared to reflect the stability and energy dissipation requirements of the knee during gait. When simple constraints were applied to the energy transfer input conditions (their signs), simulations indicated that it was possible to predict the future energy state with an accuracy of >80% when 2% cycle in advance (∼20 ms) of the switch and >60% for 4% (∼40 ms) in advance. This study justifies future research to explore whether this encoding algorithm can be used to identify submodes of other human activity that are relevant to TFP control, such as chair and stair activities and their transitions from walking, as well as unexpected perturbations.


2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Florian Fischer ◽  
Miroslav Bachinski ◽  
Markus Klar ◽  
Arthur Fleig ◽  
Jörg Müller

AbstractAmong the infinite number of possible movements that can be produced, humans are commonly assumed to choose those that optimize criteria such as minimizing movement time, subject to certain movement constraints like signal-dependent and constant motor noise. While so far these assumptions have only been evaluated for simplified point-mass or planar models, we address the question of whether they can predict reaching movements in a full skeletal model of the human upper extremity. We learn a control policy using a motor babbling approach as implemented in reinforcement learning, using aimed movements of the tip of the right index finger towards randomly placed 3D targets of varying size. We use a state-of-the-art biomechanical model, which includes seven actuated degrees of freedom. To deal with the curse of dimensionality, we use a simplified second-order muscle model, acting at each degree of freedom instead of individual muscles. The results confirm that the assumptions of signal-dependent and constant motor noise, together with the objective of movement time minimization, are sufficient for a state-of-the-art skeletal model of the human upper extremity to reproduce complex phenomena of human movement, in particular Fitts’ Law and the $$\frac{2}{3}$$ 2 3 Power Law. This result supports the notion that control of the complex human biomechanical system can plausibly be determined by a set of simple assumptions and can easily be learned.


2011 ◽  
Vol 3 (5) ◽  
pp. 213-217 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katherine A. Konop ◽  
Kelly M.B. Strifling ◽  
Joseph Krzak ◽  
Adam Graf ◽  
Gerald F. Harris

2002 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-4, 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher R. Brigham

Abstract To account for the effects of multiple impairments, evaluating physicians must provide a summary value that combines multiple impairments so the whole person impairment is equal to or less than the sum of all the individual impairment values. A common error is to add values that should be combined and typically results in an inflated rating. The Combined Values Chart in the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, Fifth Edition, includes instructions that guide physicians about combining impairment ratings. For example, impairment values within a region generally are combined and converted to a whole person permanent impairment before combination with the results from other regions (exceptions include certain impairments of the spine and extremities). When they combine three or more values, physicians should select and combine the two lowest values; this value is combined with the third value to yield the total value. Upper extremity impairment ratings are combined based on the principle that a second and each succeeding impairment applies not to the whole unit (eg, whole finger) but only to the part that remains (eg, proximal phalanx). Physicians who combine lower extremity impairments usually use only one evaluation method, but, if more than one method is used, the physician should use the Combined Values Chart.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document