The Test-Retest Reliability of Anatomical Co-Ordinate Axes Definition for the Quantification of Lower Extremity Kinematics During Running

Open access

Three-dimensional (3-D) kinematic analyses are used widely in both sport and clinical examinations. However, this procedure depends on reliable palpation of anatomical landmarks and mal-positioning of markers between sessions may result in improperly defined segment co-ordinate system axes which will produce in-consistent joint rotations. This had led some to question the efficacy of this technique. The aim of the current investigation was to assess the reliability of the anatomical frame definition when quantifying 3-D kinematics of the lower extremities during running. Ten participants completed five successful running trials at 4.0 m·s-1 ± 5%. 3-D angular joint kinematics parameters from the hip, knee and ankle were collected using an eight camera motion analysis system. Two static calibration trials were captured. The first (test) was conducted prior to the running trials following which anatomical landmarks were removed. The second was obtained following completion of the running trials where anatomical landmarks were re-positioned (retest). Paired samples t-tests were used to compare 3-D kinematic parameters quantified using the two static trials, and intraclass correlations were employed to examine the similarities between the sagittal, coronal and transverse plane waveforms. The results indicate that no significant (p>0.05) differences were found between test and retest 3-D kinematic parameters and strong (R2≥0.87) correlations were observed between test and retest waveforms. Based on the results obtained from this investigation, it appears that the anatomical co-ordinate axes of the lower extremities can be defined reliably thus confirming the efficacy of studies using this technique.

Bell AL, Brand RA, Pedersen DR. Prediction of hip joint centre location from external landmarks. Hum Mov Sci, 1989; 8: 3-16

Besier TF, Sturnieks DL, Alderson JA, Lloyd DG. Repeatability of gait data using a functional hip joint centre and a mean helical knee axis. J Biomech, 2003; 36: 1159-68

Cappozzo A, Catani F, Leardini A, Benedeti MG, Della CU. Position and orientation in space of bones during movement: Anatomical frame definition and determination. Clin Biomech, 1995; 10: 171-178

Cappozzo A. Gait analysis methodology. Hum Mov Sci, 1984; 3: 25-54

Cappozzo A, Cappello A, Croce U, Pensalfini F. Surface-marker cluster design criteria for 3-D bone movement reconstruction. IEEE Transactions on Biomed Eng, 1997; 44: 1165-1174

Corazza S, Mundermann L, Chaudhari AM, Demattio T, Cobelli C, Andriacchi TP. A Markerless Motion Capture System to Study Musculoskeletal Biomechanics: Visual Hull and Simulated Annealing Approach, Ann Biomed Eng, 2006; 34: 1019-1029

Della Croce U, Cappozzo A, Kerrigan DC. Pelvis and lower limb anatomical landmark calibration precision and its propagation to bone geometry and joint angles. Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing, 1999; 37: 155-161

Della Croce U, Leardini A, Chiari L, Cappozzo A. Human movement analysis using stereophotogrammetry-part 4: assessment of anatomical landmark misplacement and its effects on joint kinematics. Gait & Posture, 2005; 21: 226-237

Ferber R, McClay Davis I, Williams D, Laughton C. A comparison of within- and between-day reliability of discrete 3D lower extremity variables in runners. J Orthop Res, 2002; 20: 1139-1145

Gorton GE, Hebert DA, Gannotti ME. Assessment of the kinematic variability among 12 motion analysis laboratories, Gait & Posture, 2009; 29: 398-402

Kadaba MP, Ramakrishnan HK, Wootten ME, Gainey J, Gorton G, Cochran GV. Repeatability of kinematic, kinetic, and electromyographic data in normal adult gait. J Orthop Res, 1989; 7: 849-60

Leo T. AIM Project A: CAMARC-II (computer aided movement analysis in a rehabilitation context-II). Comput Methods Programs Biomed, 2002; 45: 11-13

McGinley JL, Baker R, Wolfe R, Morris ME. The reliability of three-dimensional kinematic gait measurements: a systematic review. Gait & Posture, 2009; 29: 360-369

Pohl MB, Chandra L, Ferber R. Can the reliability of three-dimensional running kinematics be improved using functional joint methodology? Gait & Posture, 2010; 32: 559-563

Richards J, Thewlis D. Anatomical models and markers sets. In Richards J Ed. Biomechanics in clinic and research, Churchill Livingston Elseivier, 117-128; 2008

Rothstein JM, Echternach JL. Primer on measurement: an introductory guide to measurement issues. American Physical Therapy Association (APTA), 221-225; 1993

Sinclair J, Taylor PJ, Edmundson CJ, Brooks D, Hobbs SJ. Influence of the helical and six available cardan sequences on 3-D ankle joint kinematic parameters. Sports Biomech, 2012; 11: 430-437

Sinclair J, Hobbs SJ, Edmundson CJ, Brooks D. Evaluation of kinematic methods of identifying foot strike and toe-off during running, Int J Sp Sci and Eng, 2011; 5: 188-192

Stacoff A, Reinschmidt C, Stüssi E. The movement of the heel within a running shoe. Med Sci Sport Exer, 1992; 24: 695-701

Thewlis D, Richards J, Bower J. Discrepancies in Knee Joint Moments Using Common Anatomical Frames Defined by Different Palpable Landmarks, J App Biomech, 2008; 24: 185-190

Journal of Human Kinetics

The Journal of Academy of Physical Education in Katowice

Journal Information

IMPACT FACTOR 2017: 1.174
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 1.634

CiteScore 2017: 1.31

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.516
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 0.906

Cited By


All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 136 132 10
PDF Downloads 48 47 4