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

Wave Parameters01:10

Wave Parameters

9.3K
The simplest mechanical waves are associated with simple harmonic motion and repeat themselves for several cycles. These simple harmonic waves can be modeled using a combination of sine and cosine functions. Consider a simplified surface water wave that moves across the water's surface. Unlike complex ocean waves, in surface water waves, water moves vertically, oscillating up and down, whereas the disturbance of the wave moves horizontally through the medium. If a seagull is floating on the...
9.3K
Equation of Motion: General Plane motion01:22

Equation of Motion: General Plane motion

579
In the context of a rigid body's movement within a general plane, it is important to understand that this motion is typically triggered by external forces or couple moments exerted onto it. This principle can be explained through Newton's second law, which stipulates the translational motion of the body's center of mass along each axis.
Moreover, the body's center of mass experiences a rotational effect as a result of these couple moments. This rotation can be articulated as the...
579
Absolute Motion Analysis- General Plane Motion01:24

Absolute Motion Analysis- General Plane Motion

564
Visualize a drone, with its propellers spinning rapidly, hovering mid-air. The fascinating movements and operations of this drone can be comprehended by applying the principle of general plane motion.
As the drone's propellers rotate, an upward force is generated that counteracts the force of gravity, enabling the drone to lift off from the ground. This initial movement of the drone is along a straight path, representing a form of translational motion. In this phase, every point on the...
564
Equation of Motion: General Plane motion - Problem Solving01:16

Equation of Motion: General Plane motion - Problem Solving

505
Consider a lawn roller with a mass of 100 kg, a radius of 0.2 meters, and a radius of gyration of 0.15 meters. A force of 200 N is applied to this roller, angled at 60 degrees from the horizontal plane. What will be the angular acceleration of the lawn roller?
The friction between the roller and the ground is characterized by two coefficients. The static friction coefficient is 0.15, while the kinetic friction coefficient is 0.1. These values are crucial in understanding the interaction between...
505
Projectile Motion: Example01:18

Projectile Motion: Example

12.8K
The theory of projectile motion is very useful for players of several sports to improve their performance. For example, a javelin thrower needs to throw their javelin in such a way that it travels as far as possible. The javelin thrower takes a short run-up to increase the initial speed of the javelin. The range of a projectile is at its maximum at a 45° angle so javelin throwers try to angle their throw as close to 45° as possible.
When we speak of the range (R) of a projectile on...
12.8K
Simple Harmonic Motion and Uniform Circular Motion01:42

Simple Harmonic Motion and Uniform Circular Motion

5.6K
While simple harmonic motion and uniform circular motion may be two separate concepts, they correlate and interlink with each other. Simple harmonic motion is an oscillatory motion in a system where the net force can be described by Hooke's law, while uniform circular motion is the motion of an object in a circular path at constant speed.
There is an easy way to produce simple harmonic motion by using uniform circular motion. For instance, consider a ball attached to a uniformly rotating...
5.6K

You might also read

Related Articles

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

Sort by
Same author

Understanding self-management and digital health needs in musicians with playing-related musculoskeletal disorders: an explanatory sequential mixed-methods study.

BMJ open·2026
Same author

Advances in the Measurement and Interpretation of Intervertebral Motion in the Lumbar Spine: A Scoping Review.

Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)·2026
Same author

Cross-validation of two independent methods to analyze the sequence of segmental contributions in the cervical spine in extension cineradiographic recordings.

BMC musculoskeletal disorders·2025
Same author

The relation between bulk (external) and internal measures of spinal stiffness.

Chiropractic & manual therapies·2025
Same author

Concurrent validity of skin-based motion capture systems in measuring dynamic lumbar intervertebral angles.

Journal of biomechanics·2025
Same author

Effect of asymptomatic intervertebral flexion patterns on lumbar disc pressure: A finite element analysis study.

International journal for numerical methods in biomedical engineering·2024

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Feb 1, 2026

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

3.6K

Intrasubject repeatability of in vivo intervertebral motion parameters using quantitative fluoroscopy.

Alexander Breen1, Rebecca Hemming2, Fiona Mellor1

  • 1Centre for Biomechanics Research, AECC University College, Parkwood Road, Bournemouth, Dorset, BH5 2DF, UK.

European Spine Journal : Official Publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society
|December 12, 2018
PubMed
Summary

Quantitative fluoroscopy reliably measures intervertebral range of motion (IV-RoM) and disc height for low back pain research. Other motion parameters show less reliable results over six weeks.

Keywords:
KinematicsLow back painQuantitative imaging biomarkersSpinal surgery

More Related Videos

Optical Sectioning and Visualization of the Intervertebral Disc from Embryonic Development to Degeneration
06:22

Optical Sectioning and Visualization of the Intervertebral Disc from Embryonic Development to Degeneration

Published on: July 8, 2021

2.6K
An In Vitro Organ Culture Model of the Murine Intervertebral Disc
08:03

An In Vitro Organ Culture Model of the Murine Intervertebral Disc

Published on: April 11, 2017

10.3K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Feb 1, 2026

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

3.6K
Optical Sectioning and Visualization of the Intervertebral Disc from Embryonic Development to Degeneration
06:22

Optical Sectioning and Visualization of the Intervertebral Disc from Embryonic Development to Degeneration

Published on: July 8, 2021

2.6K
An In Vitro Organ Culture Model of the Murine Intervertebral Disc
08:03

An In Vitro Organ Culture Model of the Murine Intervertebral Disc

Published on: April 11, 2017

10.3K

Area of Science:

  • Biomedical Engineering
  • Orthopedics
  • Radiology

Background:

  • In vivo imaging advances enable biomarker discovery for low back pain.
  • Accurate measurement of changes in intervertebral motion over time is crucial for studying low back pain.
  • Quantitative fluoroscopy (QF) offers a method for in vivo quantification of spinal motion.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To determine the intrasubject repeatability of six in vivo intervertebral motion parameters.
  • To assess the reliability and agreement of quantitative fluoroscopy measurements for lumbar spine motion.
  • To identify reliable parameters for use in clinical trials and patient outcome studies.

Main Methods:

  • Prospective investigation involving 109 healthy volunteers.
  • Standardized quantitative fluoroscopy (QF) protocol used for measurements.
  • Six lumbar spine intervertebral motion parameters assessed: intervertebral range of motion (IV-RoM), laxity, motion sharing inequality (MSI), motion sharing variability (MSV), flexion translation, and anterior disc height change.

Main Results:

  • Disc height (ICC 0.89, MDC 43%) and IV-RoM (ICC 0.96, MDC 60%) demonstrated the best intrasubject reliability and agreement.
  • Laxity, MSI, and translation showed acceptable reliability (ICCs > 0.60) but poor agreement (MDC > 85%).
  • MSV exhibited poor reliability (ICC 0.04) and agreement (MDC 408%) over a 6-week period.

Conclusions:

  • Disc height and IV-RoM measurements using QF are suitable for randomized controlled trials.
  • Laxity, MSI, and translation may serve as moderators, correlates, or mediators for patient-reported outcomes.
  • MSV is not reliable for tracking changes in intervertebral motion over 6 weeks.