Positioning errors of anatomical landmarks identified by fixed vertices in homologous meshes.

BACKGROUND: Human movement analysis is usually achieved by tracking markers attached to anatomical landmarks with photogrammetry. Such marker-based systems have disadvantages that have led to the development of markerless procedures, although their accuracy is not usually comparable to that of manual palpation procedures. New motion acquisition systems, such as 3D temporal scanners, provide homologous meshes that can be exploited for this purpose. RESEARCH QUESTION: Can fixed vertices of a homologous mesh be used to identify anatomical landmarks with an accuracy equivalent to that of manual palpation? METHODS: We used 3165 human shape scans from the CAESAR dataset, with labelled locations of anatomical landmarks. First, we fitted a template mesh to the scans, and assigned a vertex of that mesh to 53 anatomical landmarks in all subjects. Then we defined a nominal vertex for each landmark, as the more centred vertex out of the set assigned for that landmark. We calculated the errors of the template-fitting and the nominal vertex determination procedures, and analysed their relationship to subject's sex, height and body mass index, as well as their size compared to manual palpation errors. RESULTS: The template-fitting errors were below 5 mm, and the nominal vertex determination errors reached maximum values of 24 mm. Except for the trochanter, those errors were the same order of magnitude or smaller than inter-examiner errors of lower limb landmarks. Errors increased with height and body mass index, and were smaller for men than for women of the same height and body mass index. SIGNIFICANCE: We defined a set of vertices for 53 anatomical landmarks in a homologous mesh, which yields location errors comparable to those obtained by manual palpation for the majority of landmarks. We also quantified how the subject's sex and anthropometric features can affect the size of those errors.

Accuracy of a 3D temporal scanning system for gait analysis: Comparative with a marker-based photogrammetry system.

BACKGROUND: Combining the accuracy of marker-based stereophotogrammetry and the usability and comfort of markerless human movement analysis is a difficult challenge. 3D temporal scanners are a promising solution, since they provide moving meshes with thousands of vertices that can be used to analyze human movements. RESEARCH QUESTION: Can a 3D temporal scanner be used as a markerless system for gait analysis with the same accuracy as traditional, marker-based stereophotogrammetry systems? METHODS: A comparative study was carried out using a 3D temporal scanner synchronized with a marker-based stereophotogrammetry system. Two gait cycles of twelve healthy adults were measured simultaneously, extracting the positions of key anatomical points from both systems, and using them to analyze the 3D kinematics of the pelvis, right hip and knee joints. Measurement differences of marker positions and joint angles were described by their root mean square. A t-test was performed to rule out instrumental errors, and an F-test to evaluate the amplifications of marker position errors in dynamic conditions. RESULTS: The differences in 3D landmark positions were between 1.9 and 2.4 mm in the reference pose. Marker position errors were significantly increased during motion in the medial-lateral and vertical directions. The angle relative errors were between 3% and 43% of the range of motion, with the greatest difference being observed in hip axial rotation. SIGNIFICANCE: The differences in the results obtained between the 3D temporal scanner and the marker-based system were smaller than the usual errors due to lack of accuracy in the manual positioning of markers on anatomical landmarks and to soft-tissue artefacts. That level of accuracy is greater than other markerless systems, and proves that such technology is a good alternative to traditional, marker-based motion capture.

Effects of patient orientations, landmark positions, and device positions on the MRI RF-induced heating for modular external fixation devices.

PURPOSE: This paper studies the RF-induced heating for modular external fixation devices applied on the leg regions of the human bodies. Through numerical investigations of RF-induced heating related to different patient orientations, landmark positions, and device positions under 1.5T and 3T MRI systems, simple and practical methods to reduce RF-induced heating are recommended. METHODS: Numerical simulations using a full-wave electromagnetic solver based on the finite-difference time-domain method were performed to characterize the effects of patient orientations (head-first/feet-first), landmark positions (the scanning area of the patient), and device positions (device on left or right leg) on the RF-induced heating of the external fixation devices. The G32 coil design and three anatomical human models (Duke model, Ella model, and Fats model) were adopted to model the MRI RF coil and the patients. RESULTS: The relative positions of the patient, device, and coil can significantly affect the RF-induced heating. With other conditions remaining the same, changing the device position or patient orientation can lead to a peak 1-g averaged spatial absorption ratio variation of a factor around four. By changing the landmark position and the patient orientation, the RF-induced heating can be reduced from 1323.6 W/kg to 217.5 W/kg for the specific scanning situations studied. CONCLUSION: Patient orientations, landmark positions, and device positions influence the RF-induced heating of modular external fixation devices at 1.5 T and 3 T. These features can be used to reduce the RF-induced heating during MRI simply and practically.

Calibrating Range Measurements of Lidars Using Fixed Landmarks in Unknown Positions.

We consider the problem of calibrating range measurements of a Light Detection and Ranging (lidar) sensor that is dealing with the sensor nonlinearity and heteroskedastic, range-dependent, measurement error. We solved the calibration problem without using additional hardware, but rather exploiting assumptions on the environment surrounding the sensor during the calibration procedure. More specifically we consider the assumption of calibrating the sensor by placing it in an environment so that its measurements lie in a 2D plane that is parallel to the ground. Then, its measurements come from fixed objects that develop orthogonally w.r.t. the ground, so that they may be considered as fixed points in an inertial reference frame. Moreover, we consider the intuition that moving the distance sensor within this environment implies that its measurements should be such that the relative distances and angles among the fixed points above remain the same. We thus exploit this intuition to cast the sensor calibration problem as making its measurements comply with this assumption that "fixed features shall have fixed relative distances and angles". The resulting calibration procedure does thus not need to use additional (typically expensive) equipment, nor deploy special hardware. As for the proposed estimation strategies, from a mathematical perspective we consider models that lead to analytically solvable equations, so to enable deployment in embedded systems. Besides proposing the estimators we moreover analyze their statistical performance both in simulation and with field tests. We report the dependency of the MSE performance of the calibration procedure as a function of the sensor noise levels, and observe that in field tests the approach can lead to a tenfold improvement in the accuracy of the raw measurements.

Comparison of landmark position between conventional cephalometric radiography and CT scans projected to midsagittal plane / 대한치과교정학회지

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to compare landmark position between cephalometric radiography and midsagittal plane projected images from 3 dimensional (3D) CT. METHODS: Cephalometric radiographs and CT scans were taken from 20 patients for treatment of mandibular prognathism. After selection of landmarks, CT images were projected to the midsagittal plane and magnified to 110% according to the magnifying power of radiographs. These 2 images were superimposed with frontal and occipital bone. Common coordinate system was established on the base of FH plane. The coordinate value of each landmark was compared by paired t test and mean and standard deviation of difference was calculated. RESULTS: The difference was from -0.14 +/- 0.65 to -2.12 +/- 2.89 mm in X axis, from 0.34 +/- 0.78 to -2.36 +/- 2.55 mm (6.79 +/- 3.04 mm) in Y axis. There was no significant difference only 9 in X axis, and 7 in Y axis out of 20 landmarks. This might be caused by error from the difference of head positioning, by masking the subtle end structures, identification error from the superimposition and error from the different definition. CONCLUSIONS: This study revealed innate shortcomings of radiography. For the development of 3D cephalometry, more study was needed.