The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Comparison of kinematic acquisition methods for musculoskeletal analysis of underwater flykick

Comparison of kinematic acquisition methods for musculoskeletal analysis of underwater flykick
Comparison of kinematic acquisition methods for musculoskeletal analysis of underwater flykick
The use of musculoskeletal modeling as a tool for analysing performance sport is increasing. This typically involves simulating an athlete's motion as well as the external loads they experience and assessing muscle activities with respect to the given kinematics. The findings of any analysis are therefore dependent on the accuracy of the kinematics. Furthermore, for sports where the environment directly influences the kinematics, for example swimming, it is preferable to capture the athlete's motion in this environment. For the example of swimming, using typical optical based systems is challenging due to marker occlusions and the reflection of the water, while the frequently used manual digitisation of video data is laborious and time intensive. Inertial measurement units (IMU), however, have been shown to be suitable alternative for capturing gait kinematics.

This paper compares results from a musculoskeletal model of human underwater flykick where the kinematics have been determined from two sources; manual digitisation and IMUs. The model simulates the anatomy of the trunk and lower limbs while motion is prescribed for; pelvic-pitch and pelvis-thorax, hip, and knee flexion-extension. It is found that the knee, hip and pelvic-pitch angles derived from the IMU exhibit close agreement to the manual digitisation process and captures the swimmer's motion well as compared to the respective video frames. The musculoskeletal model was executed for both input types and the observed maximum muscle activities were similar in both trend and mean. It is therefore suggested the multiple IMUs can be reliably employed in determining joint kinematics of underwater flykick
56-61
Phillips, C.W.G.
767ff06f-b4a0-49a6-8e22-d0b2fd2df494
Forrester, A.I.J.
176bf191-3fc2-46b4-80e0-9d9a0cd7a572
Hudson, D.A.
3814e08b-1993-4e78-b5a4-2598c40af8e7
Turnock, S.R.
d6442f5c-d9af-4fdb-8406-7c79a92b26ce
Phillips, C.W.G.
767ff06f-b4a0-49a6-8e22-d0b2fd2df494
Forrester, A.I.J.
176bf191-3fc2-46b4-80e0-9d9a0cd7a572
Hudson, D.A.
3814e08b-1993-4e78-b5a4-2598c40af8e7
Turnock, S.R.
d6442f5c-d9af-4fdb-8406-7c79a92b26ce

Phillips, C.W.G., Forrester, A.I.J., Hudson, D.A. and Turnock, S.R. (2014) Comparison of kinematic acquisition methods for musculoskeletal analysis of underwater flykick. [in special issue: The Engineering of Sport 10] Procedia Engineering, 72, 56-61. (doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2014.06.012).

Record type: Article

Abstract

The use of musculoskeletal modeling as a tool for analysing performance sport is increasing. This typically involves simulating an athlete's motion as well as the external loads they experience and assessing muscle activities with respect to the given kinematics. The findings of any analysis are therefore dependent on the accuracy of the kinematics. Furthermore, for sports where the environment directly influences the kinematics, for example swimming, it is preferable to capture the athlete's motion in this environment. For the example of swimming, using typical optical based systems is challenging due to marker occlusions and the reflection of the water, while the frequently used manual digitisation of video data is laborious and time intensive. Inertial measurement units (IMU), however, have been shown to be suitable alternative for capturing gait kinematics.

This paper compares results from a musculoskeletal model of human underwater flykick where the kinematics have been determined from two sources; manual digitisation and IMUs. The model simulates the anatomy of the trunk and lower limbs while motion is prescribed for; pelvic-pitch and pelvis-thorax, hip, and knee flexion-extension. It is found that the knee, hip and pelvic-pitch angles derived from the IMU exhibit close agreement to the manual digitisation process and captures the swimmer's motion well as compared to the respective video frames. The musculoskeletal model was executed for both input types and the observed maximum muscle activities were similar in both trend and mean. It is therefore suggested the multiple IMUs can be reliably employed in determining joint kinematics of underwater flykick

Text
1-s2.0-S1877705814005281-main.pdf - Version of Record
Available under License Other.
Download (1MB)

More information

e-pub ahead of print date: June 2014
Published date: 2014
Organisations: Fluid Structure Interactions Group

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 373144
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/373144
PURE UUID: 5e4444f9-98ff-4bc8-8683-55109dac8490
ORCID for D.A. Hudson: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0002-2012-6255
ORCID for S.R. Turnock: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0001-6288-0400

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 09 Jan 2015 13:45
Last modified: 09 Jan 2022 02:47

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: C.W.G. Phillips
Author: D.A. Hudson ORCID iD
Author: S.R. Turnock ORCID iD

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×