Automatic distinction of upper body motions in the main anatomical planes.

The assessment of spinal mobility and function is gaining clinical importance for the diagnosis and monitoring of low back pain, but its measurement and evaluation remains difficult. As a critical step towards non-supervised assessment of spinal functional, the aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of symmetrical sensors fixed to the sides of the spinal column to distinguish between different upper body movements in the main anatomical planes. 429 healthy volunteers underwent a defined choreography including repeated upper body flexion, extension, lateral bending and axial rotation exercises. The movements were assessed using the Epionics SPINE sensor system. Two pattern recognition models were developed and applied to distinguish between the different movements in a frame-by-frame manner, as well as for whole motion sequences. On average, it was possible to differentiate between different upper body movements with a sensitivity of over 96% for both modelling approaches. The largest type II error was the incorrect identification of extension, possibly due to deviations from the reference standing posture during measurements and small changes in the lordotic angle during extension. The use of two sagittal sensors attached symmetrically to the back therefore seems to allow the distinction of upper body movements in a robust manner, and therefore opens perspectives for the unsupervised recognition of movements and functional activity over extended periods.

[1]  A H McGregor,et al.  Motion Characteristics of the Lumbar Spine in the Normal Population , 1995, Spine.

[3]  D. Leyk,et al.  Analysis of spine loads in dentistry—impact of an altered sitting position of the dentist , 2010 .

[4]  A. Mcgregor,et al.  Motion Characteristics of Normal Subjects and People with Low Back Pain , 1995 .

[5]  A. Rohlmann,et al.  Velocity of Lordosis Angle during Spinal Flexion and Extension , 2012, PloS one.

[6]  Rolf Ellegast,et al.  Quantitative measurement of stressful trunk postures in nursing professions. , 2007, The Annals of occupational hygiene.

[7]  Antonius Rohlmann,et al.  Optimised loads for the simulation of axial rotation in the lumbar spine. , 2011, Journal of biomechanics.

[8]  A. Moore,et al.  A new, comprehensive normative database of lumbar spine ranges of motion , 2001, Clinical rehabilitation.

[9]  A. Mcgregor,et al.  Quantitative assessment of the motion of the lumbar spine in the low back pain population and the effect of different spinal pathologies on this motion , 2005, European Spine Journal.

[10]  J. Caro,et al.  A systematic review of low back pain cost of illness studies in the United States and internationally. , 2008, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[11]  W. Marras,et al.  Flexibility and velocity of the normal and impaired lumbar spine. , 1986, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[12]  William R Taylor,et al.  A novel system for the dynamic assessment of back shape. , 2010, Medical engineering & physics.

[13]  K. Jamrozik,et al.  Function after spinal treatment, exercise and rehabilitation (FASTER): improving the functional outcome of spinal surgery , 2010, BMC musculoskeletal disorders.

[14]  W S Marras,et al.  Measuring trunk motions in industry: variability due to task factors, individual differences, and the amount of data collected , 2000, Ergonomics.

[15]  Antonius Rohlmann,et al.  Comparative evaluation of a novel measurement tool to assess lumbar spine posture and range of motion , 2012, European Spine Journal.