Comparing Theoretically Scaled Biomechanical Models
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
F. N. Matari↗
Engineering topics
F. N. Matari
Publications and source records attributed to F. N. Matari.
TOWARD A METHOD FOR SCALING HUMAN BODY MODELS IN AN IMU-BASED WORKFLOW
BACKGROUND Scaled biomechanical models can more accurately inform crew health decisions when tailored to the wide range of astronaut sizes. One component to improve scaling of existing models to better represent each unique astronaut’s size is the individual length scaling of limbs. Traditionally, these lengths are determined by motion capture or manual measurement. A new method is herein proposed for length scaling which can be done by measuring linear and angular accelerations at a desired point during isolated motion around a point of rotation, then calculating the distance between the desired point and point of rotation. When an Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) device is placed at the distal point of a limb, the isolated motion is about that limb’s proximal joint. For example, to measure forearm length, an IMU is placed at the wrist, the point of rotation is at the elbow, and the isolated motion is forearm flexion and extension. These calculated lengths are then used to scale models to each unique astronaut’s size, thereby improving the applicability of the model. This method of scaling limb segments can be used for any limb that has an easily defined proximal joint for the limb to rotate around including hands, arms, legs, feet. Utilizing IMUs for data collection also provides the synergistic ability to record data without a dedicated space in a room with many cameras, therefore reducing the data collection footprint, or record data where optical motion capture is not possible, such as inside a spacesuit. METHODS AND RESULTS To test this method, upper body data collection was performed with 5 Xsens DOT IMUs on a single subject. IMUs consist of an accelerometer, a gyroscope, and a magnetometer which collect linear acceleration, angular velocity, and magnetic fluctuations, respectively. Before any ground-based laboratory collection, the magnetic fluctuations are used to correct the heading of the IMU in space relative to the Earth’s magnetic field. The direct measurement of angular velocity is integrated to calculate angular acceleration. Then the linear acceleration ( a ) and angular acceleration (α) are solved using r = at/α to calculate the radius, which in this case is the distance between the IMU and the point of rotation (i.e., segment length). The IMU must be placed at the most distal point of the limb being measured (i.e., ankle if measuring lower leg length) and the test plan must consist of an isolated motion about that limb’s proximal joint (i.e., knee flexion and extension if measuring lower leg length). The distances (radii) calculated at every time interval were filtered (bandpass filter keeping 5th-90th percentile data) to eliminate outliers and spurious data that occur when the isolated motion was stopped or nearly stopped. The remaining distances were averaged, resulting in the calculated limb length. Scaling factors were then computed by dividing the calculated limb length by the unscaled model’s length. These scale factors are plugged into the Scale Tool in OpenSim [1,2] to apply the scaling to the OpenSim Full Body Rajagopal Model [3,4]. Manual measurements of limb lengths were taken before data collection started and used for comparing against the calculated lengths. The Anthropometric Survey of US Army Personnel (ANSUR II) [5] was also used as a third source of reference for limb length measurements. The following measurements were retrieved from the subject before data collection: 34.5 cm from L1 to C7 (thorax), 25.7 cm from C7 Joint Center (JC) to head vertex (neck and head), 36.3 cm from shoulder JC to elbow JC (humerus), 29.5 cm from elbow JC to wrist JC (forearm), and 16.2 cm from clavicle to acromion (clavicle). Of those five, forearm and humerus lengths were calculated using this proposed method to obtain preliminary results. The forearm length after filtering and averaging was calculated to be 37.6 cm. This is a 28% overestimation from the measured forearm length (29.5 cm). The humerus length after filtering and averaging was calculated to be 47.8 cm. This is a 31% difference from the measured subject length (36.3 cm). Sources of error include imperfect isolated motion (method currently expects that motion should be perfectly circular in a 2D plane, include no rotation of the IMU, and be relatively smooth; a more secure IMU attachment method will help), unrefined filter techniques (removed highest and lowest values with 20% high and low pass filters and no smoothing filters), arbitrary removal of stopped or near stopped data (kept data for only a short range before and after the angular velocity peaking), and a more representative method for removing gravitational acceleration is needed (current method is to zero all accelerations against a baseline taken just before the isolated motion which does not account for the gravitational acceleration changed due to IMU rotation during movement). Addressing these error sources will improve the accuracy of the limb length calculation. Next steps include creating a method for whole-body scaling estimation using individual limb scale factors. Continued pursuit of these techniques is expected to enable acquiring anthropometric information using only IMUs in real-time.
E. K. Marecki↗
Toward A Method for Scaling Human Body Models in an IMU-Based Workflow
- Scaled biomechanical models can more accurately inform crew health decisions when tailored to the wide range of astronaut sizes. One component to improve scaling of existing models to better represent each unique astronaut’s size is the individual length scaling of limbs. Traditionally, limb lengths are determined by motion capture or manual measurement. - A new method is herein proposed for length scaling which can be done by measuring linear and angular accelerations at a desired point during isolated motion around a point of rotation, then calculating the distance between the desired point and point of rotation. - When an Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) device is placed at the distal point of a limb, the isolated motion is about that limb’s proximal joint. This method of scaling limb segments can be used for any limb that has an easily defined proximal joint for the limb to rotate around including hands, arms, legs, feet. - Calculated limb lengths are then used to scale models to each unique astronaut’s size, thereby improving the applicability of the model. - This method was investigated as a possible away to obtain scaling information in data collections where IMUs are worn, but optical motion capture may not always be available, such as inside spacesuits or during crew exercise on the International Space Station.
E. K. Marecki↗
Kinematic Sensors Evaluation for Spaceflight Exercise Data Collections
INTRODUCTION: On the International Space Station (ISS), exercise feedback from astronauts is very important to diagnose and mitigate any form-related injuries and ensure efficacious exercise prescriptions and systems. Going forward, exploration exercise efforts seek to gain further quantitative data of human and system performance. Currently, methods of collecting in-flight exercise data on the ISS are limited to marker-based motion capture (MoCap) where astronauts must wear reflective markers over their clothes and specialized cameras are used. The main objective of this work was to investigate the following alternative tracking options: markerless video-based MoCap and inertial measurement units (IMUs). These were compared against traditional marker-based MoCap to evaluate kinematic accuracy and inform feasible methods for future exercise data collections on the ISS, especially in support of future Vibration Isolation and Stabilization (VIS) system development. METHODS: Three test subjects performed a variety of flight-like resistance and aerobic exercises using the Miniature Exercise Device (MED-2), Concept-2 rowing ergometer, barbell mockup, bench (e.g., for bench press, hip thruster, and cycling), and a custom structure for dips. These were intended also to represent exercises which could be performed on the multi-modality European Enhanced Exploration Exercise Device (E4D) [1]. The marker-based MoCap data, collected through a 16-camera OptiTrack MoCap system, was regarded as the gold standard to compare the data against. Passive markers were affixed to each subject according to a modified full body Plug-in Gait marker set [2] with 46 total markers. The markerless MoCap data was collected using two GoPro Hero7 cameras and one GoPro Hero11 camera. For the IMU data, a full body set of 17 Xsens DOTs were placed on the subject: 10 upper body and 7 lower body IMUs. Biomechanical modeling and evaluation was conducted through OpenSim [3] (MoCap), OpenSense [4] (IMU), OpenCap [5] (markerless), ENABLE [6] (markerless), and other modeling software. Secondary objectives included comparing the volume of equipment, reducing mass and crew set-up time. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: While there were issues with initial processing for the IMUs and markerless MoCap, the results aided in the understanding of each sensor, developing end-to-end processes, and identifying future needs. Some observed concerns with the markerless MoCap approaches included being cognizant of a cluttered background, number of people in field of view, camera number and placement. Some challenges with the IMUs included possible sliding, early deactivation possibly due to exercise pose, and large quantity sensor synchronization. Overall, the markerless MoCap option may be the preferred method of data collection and processing as it provides a solution for certain IMU shortcomings and may be least in equipment volume, upmass, and crew setup time. CONCLUSIONS: While this work was mainly focused on ISS data collection, these sensor data along with continued evaluation and development efforts will help to establish best methods for exercise data collection on Gateway, for other Artemis missions, and beyond. Details on the latest end-to-end processing of the data and results will be presented, along with lessons learned and recommended sensor selection and methods.
S. Faragalla↗