Fig 1.
The visualized human body model including the markers attached to body and the ground reaction force represented as a vector.
Fig 2.
Schematic representation of the workflow and computation of the regression method (RM) and the optimization method (OM).
Table 1.
The direct comparison mean(standard deviation)) between the segment mass estimation (kg) of both methods shows no differences except for the left arm, left forearm and the right forearm.
Fig 3.
The center of pressure of the original force plate and the reconstructed COP movement using the OM and RM, in a) COPML and b) COPAP direction are represented for 10 seconds of the 120sec movement trial for a representative subject; c) the force plate and the reconstructed vertical ground reaction forces are represented over the time of a basketball throwing motion of a representative subject.
Table 2.
Means and standard deviation (M(SD)) of COP errors [mm] during dynamic procedures calculated using BSIP's obtained from the OM and RM and the force plate (FP).
Table 3.
Means and standard deviation (M(SD)) of posturographic variable during dynamic procedures calculated using BSIP's obtained from the OM and RM and the force plate (FP).
Table 4.
Means and standard deviation (M(SD)) of COP errors and vertical GRF during dynamic procedures calculated using BSIP's obtained from the current method and RM are compared with results with Chen, 2011.