Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of scapular kinematics from optical motion capture and inertial measurement units during a work-related and functional task protocol

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Understanding scapular motion during everyday tasks is essential for adequate return-to-work and intervention programming, yet most scapular assessments involve restricted motion analysis within a laboratory setting. Inertial measurement units (IMUs) have been used to track scapular motion, but their validity compared to “gold standard” optical motion capture is not well defined. Further, it is unclear how different IMU sensor placements could affect scapular kinematic outcomes during a functional task protocol. To assess the reliability of scapular motion measurements with the use of the “gold standard” optical motion capture and IMUs, and to compare scapular IMU placement to assess which location (acromion or spine) was best for reliability of scapular motion, participants completed two testing sessions. During each lab visit, participant torso, humeri, and scapulae motion was tracked during 3 trials of 8 dynamic tasks and two elevation movements. Scapular angles were extracted during each task. To assess intra-session reliability, intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs), and root mean square errors (RMSEs) were calculated. Results showed ICCs and RMSEs were acceptable. Although there appeared offsets between the two motion capture system scapular kinematics outcomes based on the plotted waveforms, the movement patterns appeared consistent between both motion capture methods. Data also showed that acromion IMU placement produced slightly more reliable outcomes than placement on the spine.

Graphical Abstract

Two placements of scapular tracking IMUs were tested with identical procedures.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ludewig PM, Cook TM, Nawoczenski DA (1996) Three-dimensional scapular orientation and muscle activity at selected positions of humeral elevation. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 24(2):57–65

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Lempereur M, Brochard S, Leboeuf F et al (2014) Validity and reliability of 3d marker based scapular motion analysis: a systematic review. J Biomech 47(10):2219–2230

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Borstad JD, Szucs KA (2012) Three-dimensional scapula kinematics and shoulder function examined before and after surgical treatment for breast cancer. Hum Mov Sci 31(2):408–418

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Karduna AR, McClure PW, Michener LA et al (2001) Dynamic measurements of three-dimensional scapular kinematics: a validation study. J Biomech Eng 123(2):184–190. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.1351892

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Lang AE, Milosavljevic S, Dickerson CR et al (2020) Examining assessment methods of scapular motion: comparing results from planar elevations and functional task performance. Clin Biomech 80:105203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. MacLean KFE, Chopp, JN, Grewal, T-J, et al. (2014) Three-dimensional comparison of static and dynamic scapular motion tracking techniques. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 24 (1), 65–71. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1050641113002320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jelekin.2013.09.011

  7. Thigpen CA, Gross MT, Karas SG et al (2005) The repeatability of scapular rotations across three planes of humeral elevation. Res Sports Med 13(3):181–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/15438620500222489

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Yildiz TI, Eraslan L, Demirci S et al (2020) The repeatability of 3-dimensional scapular kinematic analysis during bilateral upper extremity movements. J Bodyw Mov Ther 24(4):37–42

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Friesen KB, Lang, AE. Defining repeatability for scapulothoracic and thoraohumeral motion during the Work-Related Activities and Functional Task (WRAFT) protocol. J Biomech

  10. Valevicius AM, Jun PY, Hebert JS et al (2018) Use of optical motion capture for the analysis of normative upper body kinematics during functional upper limb tasks: a systematic review. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 40:1–15

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Cutti AG, Giovanardi A, Rocchi L et al (2008) Ambulatory measurement of shoulder and elbow kinematics through inertial and magnetic sensors. Med Biol Eng Comput 46(2):169–178. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11517-007-0296-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Höglund G, Grip H, Öhberg F (2021) The importance of inertial measurement unit placement in assessing upper limb motion. Med Eng Phys 92:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.medengphy.2021.03.010

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Carnevale A, Schena, E, Formica, D, et al. (2021) Skin strain analysis of the scapular region and wearables design. Sensors (Basel). 21 (17). https://doi.org/10.3390/s21175761

  14. Lang AE, Kim, SY, Milosavljevic, S, et al. (2022) The utility of the acromion marker cluster (AMC) in a clinical population. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 62, 102298. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1050641118304838. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jelekin.2019.04.002

  15. Wu G, Van der Helm FC, Veeger HD et al (2005) Isb recommendation on definitions of joint coordinate systems of various joints for the reporting of human joint motion—part ii: shoulder, elbow, wrist and hand. J Biomech 38(5):981–992

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Richardson RT, Nicholson KF, Rapp EA et al (2016) A comparison of acromion marker cluster calibration methods for estimating scapular kinematics during upper extremity ergometry. J Biomech 49(7):1255–1258

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. van den Noort JC, Wiertsema SH, Hekman KM et al (2015) Measurement of scapular dyskinesis using wireless inertial and magnetic sensors: importance of scapula calibration. J Biomech 48(12):3460–3468

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Brochard S, Lempereur M, Rémy-Néris O (2011) Double calibration: an accurate, reliable and easy-to-use method for 3d scapular motion analysis. J Biomech 44(4):751–754

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. van den Noort JC, Wiertsema SH, Hekman KMC et al (2014) Reliability and precision of 3d wireless measurement of scapular kinematics. Med Biol Eng Comput 52(11):921–931. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11517-014-1186-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Winter DA (2009) Biomechanics and motor control of human movement: John Wiley & Sons

  21. Roren A, Fayad F, Roby-Brami A et al (2013) Precision of 3d scapular kinematic measurements for analytic arm movements and activities of daily living. Man Ther 18(6):473–480

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Shrout PE, Fleiss JL (1979) Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull 86(2):420

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Pataky TC, Robinson MA, Vanrenterghem J (2013) Vector field statistical analysis of kinematic and force trajectories. J Biomech 46(14):2394–2401

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Bourne DA, Choo AM, Regan WD et al (2007) Three-dimensional rotation of the scapula during functional movements: an in vivo study in healthy volunteers. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 16(2):150–162

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Haik MN, Alburquerque-Sendín F, Camargo PR (2014) Reliability and minimal detectable change of 3-dimensional scapular orientation in individuals with and without shoulder impingement. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 44(5):341–349

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Medicine, University of Saskatchewan, 104 Clinic Place, Saskatoon, SK, S7N 2Z4, Canada

    Kenzie B. Friesen, Anya Sigurdson & Angelica E. Lang

Authors
  1. Kenzie B. Friesen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anya Sigurdson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Angelica E. Lang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Angelica E. Lang.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval

All study procedures were approved by the institutional ethics review board.

Consent to participate

Participants provided informed consent.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (PDF 108 KB)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Friesen, K.B., Sigurdson, A. & Lang, A.E. Comparison of scapular kinematics from optical motion capture and inertial measurement units during a work-related and functional task protocol. Med Biol Eng Comput 61, 1521–1531 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11517-023-02794-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11517-023-02794-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation