Search research articles

ABOUT JoVE

Overview Leadership Blog JoVE Help Center

AUTHORS

Publishing Process Editorial Board Scope & Policies Peer Review FAQ Submit

LIBRARIANS

Testimonials Subscriptions Access Resources Library Advisory Board FAQ

RESEARCH

JoVE Journal Methods Collections JoVE Encyclopedia of Experiments Archive

EDUCATION

JoVE Core JoVE Business JoVE Science Education JoVE Lab Manual Faculty Resource Center Faculty Site

Terms & Conditions of Use

Related Concept Videos

Relative Motion Analysis - Acceleration

Relative Motion Analysis - Acceleration

A slider-crank mechanism converts rotational motion from the crank into linear motion of the slider or vice versa. This mechanism consists of three main parts: the crank, the connecting rod, and the slider. The movement of the slider-crank is an example of general plane motion as the fluctuating angle between the crank and the connecting rod. Consider a segment AB where point A is at the end of the slider and point B is on the diametrically opposite end to point A, on a crack. The variance in...

Relative Motion Analysis using Rotating Axes

Relative Motion Analysis using Rotating Axes

Consider a component AB undergoing a linear motion. Along with a linear motion, point B also rotates around point A. To comprehend this complex movement, position vectors for both points A and B are established using a stationary reference frame.
However, to express the relative position of point B relative to point A, an additional frame of reference, denoted as x'y', is necessary. This additional frame not only translates but also rotates relative to the fixed frame, making it instrumental in...

Relative Motion Analysis using Rotating Axes - Acceleration

Relative Motion Analysis using Rotating Axes - Acceleration

Consider a component AB undergoing a linear motion. Along with a linear motion, point B also rotates around point A. To comprehend this complex movement, position vectors for both points A and B are established using a stationary reference frame. The absolute velocity of point B is determined by adding the absolute velocity of point A, the relative velocity of point B in the rotating frame, and the effects caused by the angular velocity within the rotating frame.
Time differentiation is...

Kinematic Equations - II

Kinematic Equations - II

The second kinematic equation expresses the final position of an object in terms of its initial position, the distance traveled with the initial constant velocity, and the distance traveled due to a change in velocity. Similar to the first kinematic equation, this equation is also only valid when the acceleration is constant throughout the motion of an object.
Suppose a car merges into freeway traffic on a 200 m long ramp. If its initial velocity is 10 m/s and it accelerates at 2 m/s2, then the...

Kinematic Equations - I

Kinematic Equations - I

When an object moves with constant acceleration, the velocity of the object changes at a constant rate throughout the motion. The kinematic equations of motions are derived for such cases where the acceleration of the object is constant. The first kinematic equation gives an insight into the relationship between velocity, acceleration, and time. We can see, for example:

One-Degree-of-Freedom System

One-Degree-of-Freedom System

In mechanical engineering, one-degree-of-freedom systems form the basis of a wide range of electrical and mechanical components. Using these models, engineers can predict the behavior of various parts in a larger system, which gives them insight into how different forces interact with each other.
A one-degree-of-freedom system is defined by an independent variable that determines its state and behavior. One example of a one-degree-of-freedom system is a simple harmonic oscillator, such as a...

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by

Same author

No Difference Between Open and Arthroscopic ATFL Repair, Both Yielding Clinically Significant Improvement in Chronic Ankle Instability: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine·2026

Same author

Construct validity of instrumented gait assessments in hospital and daily life mobility in patients with Parkinson's disease and atypical Parkinson's syndromes: an exploratory study.

Journal of neurology·2026

Same author

On the accuracy of the Conventional gait Model: Distinction between marker misplacement and soft tissue artefact errors.

Journal of biomechanics·2023

Same author

The relationships between spinal amplitude of movement, pain and disability in low back pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

European journal of pain (London, England)·2023

Same author

Walking and running cadence estimation using a single trunk-fixed accelerometer for daily physical activities assessment.

Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. Annual International Conference·2022

Same author

Proximal tibial osteophyte volumes are correlated spatially and with knee alignment: a quantitative analysis suggesting the influence of biochemical and mechanical factors in the development of osteophytes.

Osteoarthritis and cartilage·2021

Search research articles

Related Experiment Video

Updated: May 21, 2026

An Inertial Measurement Unit Based Method to Estimate Hip and Knee Joint Kinematics in Team Sport Athletes on the Field

An Inertial Measurement Unit Based Method to Estimate Hip and Knee Joint Kinematics in Team Sport Athletes on the Field

Published on: May 26, 2020

A comparison between joint coordinate system and attitude vector for multi-segment foot kinematics.

H Rouhani¹, J Favre, X Crevoisier

¹Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Laboratory of Movement Analysis and Measurement, CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland. hossein.rouhani@epfl.ch

Journal of Biomechanics

|June 15, 2012

Summary

Comparing mathematical methods for multi-segment foot models reveals similar joint angle patterns. While not identical, the joint coordinate system and attitude vector methods offer comparable results for most foot joints, aiding biomechanical analysis.

More Related Videos

Sit-to-stand-and-walk from 120% Knee Height: A Novel Approach to Assess Dynamic Postural Control Independent of Lead-limb

Sit-to-stand-and-walk from 120% Knee Height: A Novel Approach to Assess Dynamic Postural Control Independent of Lead-limb

Published on: August 30, 2016

In Vivo Quantification of Hip Arthrokinematics during Dynamic Weight-bearing Activities using Dual Fluoroscopy

In Vivo Quantification of Hip Arthrokinematics during Dynamic Weight-bearing Activities using Dual Fluoroscopy

Published on: July 2, 2021

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: May 21, 2026

An Inertial Measurement Unit Based Method to Estimate Hip and Knee Joint Kinematics in Team Sport Athletes on the Field

An Inertial Measurement Unit Based Method to Estimate Hip and Knee Joint Kinematics in Team Sport Athletes on the Field

Published on: May 26, 2020

Sit-to-stand-and-walk from 120% Knee Height: A Novel Approach to Assess Dynamic Postural Control Independent of Lead-limb

Sit-to-stand-and-walk from 120% Knee Height: A Novel Approach to Assess Dynamic Postural Control Independent of Lead-limb

Published on: August 30, 2016

In Vivo Quantification of Hip Arthrokinematics during Dynamic Weight-bearing Activities using Dual Fluoroscopy

In Vivo Quantification of Hip Arthrokinematics during Dynamic Weight-bearing Activities using Dual Fluoroscopy

Published on: July 2, 2021

Area of Science:

Biomechanics
Orthopedics
Sports Science

Background:

Multi-segment foot models are crucial for analyzing foot biomechanics during locomotion.
Existing methods for describing foot joint angles include the joint coordinate system (JCS) and attitude vector (AV).
Understanding the comparability and error sensitivity of these descriptors is essential for accurate gait analysis.

Purpose of the Study:

To compare the joint angles derived from the JCS and AV methods in a multi-segment foot model.
To assess and compare the sensitivity of JCS and AV to experimental errors, specifically landmark misplacement.
To determine the suitability of both descriptors for clinical and research applications in foot biomechanics.

Main Methods:

Six subjects performed walking trials on an instrumented walkway.
Joint angles of the shank, hindfoot, medial forefoot, and lateral forefoot were measured using both JCS and AV.
Statistical analysis compared angle ranges, correlation coefficients, and sensitivity to simulated landmark misplacement errors.

Main Results:

No significant overall difference in the range of motion was found between JCS and AV.
High correlation (median R>0.90) was observed for most joint angles, except for the medial-lateral forefoot in the transverse plane (median R=0.77).
JCS showed higher sensitivity to landmark misplacement, but the absolute error impact was small relative to joint ranges.

Conclusions:

Joint angles derived from JCS and AV are similar for shank-hindfoot and hindfoot-medial forefoot joints, allowing cross-descriptor comparisons.
Careful consideration is needed when comparing medial-lateral forefoot angles due to lower correlation.
Both JCS and AV are suitable for multi-segment foot models, with minimal impact of experimental errors on calculated angles.