Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2411.18774

Comparative analysis of whole-body center-of-mass estimation methods in dynamic and static activities using marker-based systems

Jingshu Peng·Mohsen Alizadeh Noghani·Edgar Bolívar-Nieto
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Accurate estimation of the whole-body center of mass (CoM) is essential for assessing human stability and postural control. However, selecting the most accurate estimation method is challenging due to the complexity of human movement, diverse nature of activities, and varying availability of equipment, such as marker-based systems and ground reaction force (GRF) sensors. This study compares three CoM estimation methods -- "Pelvis Markerset", "Whole-Body Markerset", and "Whole-Body Markerset & GRFs" -- across static activities, such as standing with eyes closed, and dynamic activities, such as picking up an object from the ground. Using the root mean square (RMS) of "external force residual" (the difference between measured ground reaction forces and estimated CoM accelerations multiplied by total body mass) as a performance metric, we found that while all methods performed similarly under static conditions, the "Pelvis Markerset" method showed 96% to 104% higher RMS external force residual values during dynamic activities compared to the two whole-body methods ($p<0.001$, Cohen's $d$:2.90-3.04). The accuracy of "Whole-Body Markerset & GRFs" (i.e., Kalman filter) was similar to "Whole-Body Markerset", suggesting that incorporating the GRFs through the presented Kalman filter does not improve the estimates from whole-body kinematics. Based on these findings, we recommend the "Whole-Body Markerset" as it performs well and does not require information from GRFs. The "Pelvis Markerset" method can be used in static activities or when markersets around the pelvis reflect whole-body kinematics. This method is not recommended for CoM state estimation in highly dynamic scenarios and when whole-body markersets are available.

Explore related subjects

q-bio.QM

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Jingshu Peng, Mohsen Alizadeh Noghani, Edgar Bolívar-Nieto. 2024-11-27. Comparative analysis of whole-body center-of-mass estimation methods in dynamic and static activities using marker-based systems. https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.18774

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Lightning-fast adaptive immune receptor similarity search by symmetric deletion lookup

An individual's adaptive immune receptor (AIR) repertoire records immune history due to the receptors' antigen specificity. Reading this record requires computational approaches for inferring receptor function from sequence, as the diversity of possible receptor-antigen pairs vastly outstrips experimental knowledge. Identification of AIRs with similar sequence and thus putatively similar function is a common performance bottleneck in these approaches. Here, we benchmark the runtime scaling of five algorithmic approaches to radius-based search for Levenshtein neighbors. We show that a symmetric deletion lookup approach, originally proposed for spell-checking, is particularly scalable. We introduce SymScan and XTNeighbor, optimized CPU and GPU software implementing a parallelized variant of the algorithm. For one million input sequences, these tools identify all sequence pairs that differ by one or two edits in seconds, orders of magnitude faster than existing approaches. We demonstrate how symmetric deletion lookup can be integrated as a pre-filtering step in T cell receptor metaclone discovery and B cell receptor lineage identification. Our contribution is poised to greatly accelerate existing analysis pipelines and enable processing of immunosequencing data at scale.

q-bio.QM↗
arXiv2026

Implication of modelling choices on connectivity estimation: A comparative analysis

Landscape connectivity is an important field with important conservation implications. Connectivity modelling is a useful tool to inform and guide landscape planning. However, it involves assumptions and methodological decisions which ultimately impact connectivity outcomes. In order to understand the implications of modelling choices on final connectivity estimations, we compare two landscape characterisation approaches - expert knowledge and species distribution models - and three movements models - least-cost paths, circuit theory and an individual-based movement simulator. The implementation of the models and the construction of the analyses scope highlighted conceptual and methodological differences that made the comparison difficult. Landscape characterisation appears as the principal factor determining connectivity outcomes. Therefore, the confrontation between expert knowledge and species distribution models is critical to leverage points of convergence and complementarity between these two approaches. Conceptual differences between movement models are reported on connectivity map and habitat patch contribution estimations. In the want of data and protocol design specifically to validate connectivity models, approaches that integrate stochastic and behavioural processes, bring a more realistic perspective to connectivity estimation.

q-bio.QM↗
arXiv2026

Triplication: an important component of the modern scientific method

A scientific-study protocol (defined) is designed to deliver results from which inductive inference is allowed. In the nineteenth century, triplication was introduced into the plant sciences and Fisher's p<0.05 rule (1925) incorporated into triple-result protocols designed to counter random/systematic errors which contribute to real-world variability. The aims of the present study were to: (1) classify replication protocols; (2) assess their prevalence in plant-science studies (published during one twenty-first-century year; for defined variable construct); (3) explore triplication rationale. Methods: a plant-sciences protocol-prevalence report was produced; experimental/associational-study proportions analyzed; and real-world-data proxies used to show confidence-interval-width patterns with increasing replicate number. Results: 25% plant-science studies analyzed showed triplication, including 11% triple-result protocols (including greater replicate numbers: 48%;17%, respectively). Theoretical considerations indicated that even if systematic errors predominate, (previously-known) square-root rules sometimes apply, contributing to triplication importance (exemplified by real-world-data proxies). Conclusions: The defined protocols, with minor modifications, should provide the means for assessment of most sciences. Triplication was extensively applied in studies analysed and there are strong methodological reasons why triplication, rather than duplication/quadruplication, is the appropriate standard: triple-result protocols: (a) effectively reduce false positives to acceptable levels; (b) give qualitatively-different information (shape) from duplication; (c) have a large efficiency advantage (concerning confidence-interval widths) over quadruplication. The application of batch replication is not, primarily, a statistical problem and cannot effectively be replaced by simulation.

q-bio.QM↗