Skip to main content
Monthly Archives

June 2017

Human Performance Lab Validates Kinetisense

University of Lethbridge Human Performance Lab Validates Kinetisense.  Accuracy and validity of Kinetisense joint measures for cardinal movements, compared to current experimental and clinical gold standards.

Prepared by Engineering and Human Performance Lab
Department of Kinesiology and Physical Education
University of Lethbridge
Principal Investigator: Dr Jon Doan, P.Eng.

OVERVIEW

New marker-less motion tracking systems use skeletal tracking, gesture recognition, and predictive modelling to provide high fidelity, low cost, ‘plug and play’ motion capture in real-world contexts. Given these features, this technology has the potential to revolutionize clinical assessment, where subjective evaluations plus simple empirical measures have previously been the norm. The proposed study will examine a novel entry into this marketplace, namely the Kinetisense, specifically examining the validity of measures of basic anatomical postures from the new system against current experimental and clinical gold standards, namely three dimensional motion analysis from a passive marker infrared light system (VICON Peak) and analog goniometer respectively.

Research questions:

Validity of Kinetisense joint measures for cardinal movements in the sagittal and frontal planes, compared to current experimental and clinical gold standards;repeatability of Kinetisense motion assessments.

Methods:

24 healthy young adults performed 8 different actions, each to two different levels (specific normal range deflection, maximal deflection) and at one of two different clinically relevant camera-subject distances, inside the shared calibration volume of the Kinetisense and VICON Peak motion capture systems.

Data analysis and comparison:

Bland-Altman agreement analysis will be used to compare perceived and maximum joint angles from the Kinetisense, the VICON Peak, and the clinical tools (goniometer, inclinometer).

The primary purpose for the Kinetisense unit is as a clinical measurement tool, useful in measuring, charting, and demonstrating joint postures for clients. In that capacity, then, the Kinetisense (Kinect sensor plus Kinetisense software[as of November 182014]) has been validated in these comparisons against the current clinical standard, which is hand goniometer. Goniometry here was done by are gistered clinician (athletic therapist), and sensor to participant distances were maintained at typical clinic ranges(1.5m and 2.5m).
Experimental comparison:

The Kinetisense unit is not an experimental motion capture tool, as the software does not support interval-based whole body capture, analysis, and export. Even without these functions, however, the system does operate on current best practices and technology in marker-less motion capture. In that interest, and to further establish measurement validity, the Kinetisense (Kinect sensor plus Kinetisense software [as of Novemeber 18 2014]) has been validated against a current experimental standard, namely passive marker infrared three dimensional motion capture using a VICONPeak Motus system. Analysis in the experimental comparisons are restricted to 16 samples at each of three join motions, to prescripted and maximal joint deflections, with sensor to participant distances at 2.5m.

Summary:

Kinetisense measures are valid compared to VICON-Peak measures, based on Bland-Altman agreement analysis. Differences that do exist may be a function of different segmental models (skin surface for the VICON, simplified skeleton for the Kinetisense), different data capture methods (time-based three-dimensional position sample for the VICON, instantaneous angular interpolation for the Kinetisense).

Kinetic Centre gave new hope to a Frozen Shoulder Patient

A 47 year old Female that works full time reception and presenting with severe Left shoulder pain with limited range of motion in shoulder flexion and shoulder abduction.Symptoms of pain and reduced shoulder range of motion occurred without known cause, patient claims that “it is probably coming from my desk job”. She has been suffering from shoulder pain and reduced range of motion for over 8 months and has noticed no improvements with any previous treatment that’s she had.

Frozen shoulder treatment.

Previous treatments included:

  • massage (3 massage therapists)
  • IMS (intramuscular stimulation) (2 different practitioners)
  • Stretching
  • Myofascial Release (1 therapist)

She admits that she would often quit a treatment plan with any of her practitioners within 2-3 sessions based on her perception of “not improving”.  She has been prescribed anti-depressant medication by her medical doctor to treat depression that is associated with her chronic shoulder pain.

All upper extremity DTR’s and myotomes WNL, Speed’s negative.  Resisted shoulder abduction and flexion +⅗ on left, 5/5 on right.  DDX ultrasound of left shoulder reveals calcific tendinitis of the left supraspinatus tendon, no other abnormal findings  present.  She has been referred to our clinic by her medical doctor as a “last try” treatment before surgery.

The Kinetisense system was used at each treatment, in some cases both pre and post treatment to track her progression in function over time.

NHL prospect Analysis and Treatment Using the Kinetisense System

Dustan Lang
BScPT, GCOMT, Cert Sport Physiotherapy, FAFS,
Physiotherapist

An NHL prospect was referred to my clinic by his professional hockey team following a left ACL tear and repair this past spring. During his rehab, I had concerns regarding the lack of frontal movement in his left hip during an anterior lunge. The reason for my concern is this movement deficit would place excessive stress on his newly reconstructed knee, especially with the demands imposed during a hockey stride.I decided to use Kinetisense during my assessment and treatment for a couple reasons.

  1. Kinetisense provides visual feedback for the patient and clinician in real-time. This leads to a better understanding of the impairment present and validation of my proposed treatment technique.  At first, my patient could not visually see the motion that I was trying to produce during the stride analysis.  The real-time assessment with easy to read numbers and axis allowed him to visually see the hip tilt in the frontal plane.  This allowed for great patient engagement and education in the rehab process.
  2. It objectively measures frontal plane movement of his left hip. I don’t know how I could measure this by any other means, especially in realt-time.

The pictures illustrate the lack of frontal plane movement in his left hip during an anterior lunge. As you can see in the pictures I then utilized a manual therapy technique increasing hip adduction in the frontal plane. KInetisense then objectively measured the improvements made during the treatment session.  I could then show my patient the objective changes that my rehab techniques had made.

Kinetisense was an essential component during this athlete’s rehab. It greatly assisted in my patient’s understanding of the deficit present consequently leading to patient compliance. Kinetisense also objectively measured a movement that traditionally was very difficult to accurately assess.