Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Errors in Taping01:18

Errors in Taping

249
Errors in taping arise from multiple factors that can significantly impact measurement accuracy in surveying. Misalignment of the tape, often due to human error, is one primary source. A skilled rear tapeman, using a telescope, can help correct alignment by guiding the head tapeman; however, human limitations still lead to small inaccuracies. These errors may include misplacement of pins or inaccurate tape readings due to common visual confusions, such as mistaking a six for a nine. Such...
249
Instrument Calibration01:12

Instrument Calibration

611
Instrument calibration is essential for ensuring that instruments produce accurate and consistent results. It is vital in manufacturing, healthcare, testing laboratories, and scientific research. Calibration processes are specific to each instrument and help enhance data accuracy. Each instrument has a unique calibration process tailored to its design and function to improve data accuracy.
Analytical Balance Calibration
An analytical balance measures mass and requires regular calibration to...
611
Errors occurring during blood pressure monitoring01:25

Errors occurring during blood pressure monitoring

1.2K
Blood pressure monitoring is a crucial clinical procedure in diagnosing and managing various cardiovascular conditions. Despite its significance, the accuracy of blood pressure measurements can be compromised by multiple factors, potentially leading to either falsely high or low readings. These inaccuracies are critical as they can significantly impact patient care. So, it is vital to understand these challenges deeply and adopt strategic approaches to minimize errors.
Several factors...
1.2K

You might also read

Related Articles

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

Sort by
Same author

Digital Twins for Monitoring Neuromotor Development in Preterm Infants: Conceptual Framework and Proof-of-concept Study.

Journal of medical systems·2025
Same author

IMU-based linear and nonlinear metrics for the characterization of fine motor development in early childhood.

Gait & posture·2025
Same author

Is IMU- alternative to GRF-based posturography? A comparative assessment on young healthy adults.

Journal of biomechanics·2025
Same author

Experimental ex vivo characterization of the biomechanical effects of laminectomy and posterior fixation of the lumbo-sacral spine.

Scientific reports·2024
Same author

Effect of two-level decompressive procedures on the biomechanics of the lumbo-sacral spine: an <i>ex vivo</i> study.

Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology·2024
Same author

Machine learning applied to gait analysis data in cerebral palsy and stroke: A systematic review.

Gait & posture·2024

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Dec 24, 2025

In Vivo Quantification of Hip Arthrokinematics during Dynamic Weight-bearing Activities using Dual Fluoroscopy
07:43

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

Published on: July 2, 2021

3.4K

Effect of calibration error on bone tracking accuracy with fluoroscopy.

Luca Tersi, Rita Stagni

    Journal of Biomechanical Engineering
    |March 7, 2014
    PubMed
    Summary

    Calibration errors in 3D fluoroscopy minimally impact joint angle accuracy. While translations show sensitivity to calibration errors, these effects are often compensated in relative joint kinematics calculations.

    Area of Science:

    • Medical Imaging
    • Biomechanics
    • Orthopedics

    Background:

    • Model-based 3D-fluoroscopy offers precise joint kinematics quantification (1mm, 1°).
    • System calibration using known geometric devices is standard practice for accurate sizing.
    • Understanding calibration error impact on pose estimation is crucial for reliable kinematic analysis.

    Purpose of the Study:

    • To isolate and quantify the sensitivity of 3D fluoroscopic pose estimation accuracy to calibration errors.
    • To exclude other potential sources of error in fluoroscopic pose estimation.

    Main Methods:

    • In-silico characterization of X-ray focus calibration error propagation.
    • Analysis of different calibration setups to assess focus reference position and calibration cage pose effects.

    More Related Videos

    Measuring 3D In-vivo Shoulder Kinematics using Biplanar Videoradiography
    06:09

    Measuring 3D In-vivo Shoulder Kinematics using Biplanar Videoradiography

    Published on: March 12, 2021

    3.6K
    Movement Retraining using Real-time Feedback of Performance
    08:16

    Movement Retraining using Real-time Feedback of Performance

    Published on: January 17, 2013

    13.7K

    Related Experiment Videos

    Last Updated: Dec 24, 2025

    In Vivo Quantification of Hip Arthrokinematics during Dynamic Weight-bearing Activities using Dual Fluoroscopy
    07:43

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

    Published on: July 2, 2021

    3.4K
    Measuring 3D In-vivo Shoulder Kinematics using Biplanar Videoradiography
    06:09

    Measuring 3D In-vivo Shoulder Kinematics using Biplanar Videoradiography

    Published on: March 12, 2021

    3.6K
    Movement Retraining using Real-time Feedback of Performance
    08:16

    Movement Retraining using Real-time Feedback of Performance

    Published on: January 17, 2013

    13.7K
  • Quantification of estimation errors for principal point and focus distance.

    • Main Results:

    • Calibration error dispersion was influenced by focus reference position; bias was affected by calibration cage pose.
    • Worst-case estimation errors for principal point and focus distance were <1mm and <2mm, respectively.
    • Joint angle estimation showed minimal influence from calibration errors; joint translations exhibited submillimeter errors for realistic calibration inaccuracies.

    Conclusions:

    • 3D fluoroscopy calibration errors have a limited impact on joint angle accuracy.
    • Relative joint kinematics calculations can compensate for biased calibration errors.
    • The study provides insights into the robustness of model-based 3D fluoroscopy for joint motion analysis.