↓ Skip to main content

On the Estimation Accuracy of the 3D Body Center of Mass Trajectory during Human Locomotion: Inverse vs. Forward Dynamics

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Physiology, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
52 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
97 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
On the Estimation Accuracy of the 3D Body Center of Mass Trajectory during Human Locomotion: Inverse vs. Forward Dynamics
Published in
Frontiers in Physiology, March 2017
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2017.00129
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gaspare Pavei, Elena Seminati, Dario Cazzola, Alberto E. Minetti

Abstract

The dynamics of body center of mass (BCoM) 3D trajectory during locomotion is crucial to the mechanical understanding of the different gaits. Forward Dynamics (FD) obtains BCoM motion from ground reaction forces while Inverse Dynamics (ID) estimates BCoM position and speed from motion capture of body segments. These two techniques are widely used by the literature on the estimation of BCoM. Despite the specific pros and cons of both methods, FD is less biased and considered as the golden standard, while ID estimates strongly depend on the segmental model adopted to schematically represent the moving body. In these experiments a single subject walked, ran, (uni- and bi-laterally) skipped, and race-walked at a wide range of speeds on a treadmill with force sensors underneath. In all conditions a simultaneous motion capture (8 cameras, 36 markers) took place. 3D BCoM trajectories computed according to five marker set models of ID have been compared to the one obtained by FD on the same (about 2,700) strides. Such a comparison aims to check the validity of the investigated models to capture the "true" dynamics of gaits in terms of distance between paths, mechanical external work and energy recovery. Results allow to conclude that: (1) among gaits, race walking is the most critical in being described by ID, (2) among the investigated segmental models, those capturing the motion of four limbs and trunk more closely reproduce the subtle temporal and spatial changes of BCoM trajectory within the strides of most gaits, (3) FD-ID discrepancy in external work is speed dependent within a gait in the most unsuccessful models, and (4) the internal work is not affected by the difference in BCoM estimates.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 97 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Ireland 1 1%
Unknown 96 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 20%
Student > Master 18 19%
Researcher 14 14%
Student > Bachelor 10 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 6%
Other 14 14%
Unknown 16 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 29 30%
Sports and Recreations 23 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Other 9 9%
Unknown 25 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 February 2024.
All research outputs
#1,919,520
of 25,358,192 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#1,049
of 15,563 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,916
of 314,433 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#24
of 224 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,358,192 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,563 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 314,433 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 224 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.