Your browser does not support the NLM PubReader view.

Go to this page to see a list of supporting browsers.

Test-retest Reliability and Intratest Repeatability of Measuring Cervical Range of Motion Using Inertial Measurement Unit

Article information

J Korean Acupunct Moxib Soc. 2013;30(4):25-33
Publication date (electronic) : 2013 September 20
doi : https://doi.org/10.13045/acupunct.2013019
Hyun Ho Kim1, Kyung Wook Kim2, Ji Min Park2, Eun Seok Kim2, Min Jun Lee2, Jung Won Kang2, Sang Hoon Lee2, Young Bae Park1,
1Department of Biofunctional Medicine and Diagnostics, College of Korean Medicine, Kyung Hee University
2Department of Acupuncture and Moxibustion Medicine, College of Korean Medicine, Kyung Hee University
*Corresponding author : Department of Biofunctional Medicine and Diagnostics, College of Korean Medicine, Kyung Hee University, 23, Kyungheedae-ro, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul, 130-872, Republic of Korea, Tel : 82-2-958-9240 E mail : bmppark@khu.ac.kr
Received 2013 July 17; Revised 2013 August 24; Accepted 2013 August 24.

Abstract

Objectives :

To assess the test-retest reliability and the intratest repeatability in measuring the cervical range of motion of healthy subjects with wireless microelectromechanical system inertial measurement unit(MEMS-IMU) system and to discuss the feasibility of this system in the clinical setting to evaluate the cervical spine musculoskeletal .

Methods :

12 healthy people who were evaluated as no- or mild-disability with neck disability index were participated. Their cervical motion were measured with IMU twice in consecutive two days for the test-retest reliability study. Intratest repeatability was calculated in the two tests separately. The calculated intraclass correlation coefficients(ICC) were discussed and compared with the those of the previous studies.

Results :

Cervical range of motion data were acquired and statistically processed: left rotation(61.64°), right rotation(65.12°), extension(61.98°), flexion(52.81°), left bending(39.31°), right bending(41.08°). ICCs were 0.77∼0.98(intratest repeatability) and 0.74∼0.93 (test-retest reliability) in the primary motion. In the coupling motion, intratest repeatability ICCs were 0.93∼0.99(transverse primary plane), 0.88∼0.97(saggital primay plane), and 0.77∼0.93(coronal primary plane). Test-retest reliability of coupling motion were 0.90∼0.97(transverse primary plane), 0.00∼0.72(saggital primary plane), and 0.04∼0.76(coronal primary plane).

Conclusions :

Several types of range-of-motion devices are now on use in many fields including medicine, but the practicality of the devices in clinical use is questionable for the convenient and economical aspects. In this study, we presented the reliability of cervical range of motion test with the developed wireless MEMS-IMU system and discussed its potential utility in clinical use.

Keywords: CROM; Cervical range of motion; Coupling motion; IMU; Inertial sensor
Fig. 1.

MEMS-IMU transmitter

Fig. 2.

A sample of cervical motion data acquired by MEMS-IMU system

Solid line expresses the axial rotation along the transverse plane, while the other two dotted lines express the extension/flexion along the saggital plane and the lateral bending along the coronal plane. Negative values mean left rotation, flexion, and left bending. In this case, the primary motion is axial rotation, and the regular coupling motions are observed.

Cervical Range of Motion and Reliability

Associated Cervical Coupling Motion and Reliability

References

1. Malmström EM, Karlberg M, Fransson PA, Melander A, Magnusson M. Primary and coupled cervical movements: The effect of age, gender, and body mass index. A 3-dimensional movement analysis of a population without symptoms of neck disorders. Spine 2006;31(2):E44–E50.
2. Pearcy MJ, Tibrewal SB. Axial rotation and lateral bending in the normal lumbar spine measured by three-dimensional radiography. Spine 1984;9(6):582–7.
3. Koerhuis CL, Winters JC, Van der Helm FCT, Hof AL. Neck mobility measurement by means of the “Flock of Birds” electromagnetic tracking system. Clin Biomech 2003;18(1):14–8.
4. Lee SW, Draper ERC, Hughes SPF. Instantaneous center of rotation and instability of the cervical spine: A clinical study. Spine 1997;22(6):641–8.
5. Cook C, Hegedus E, Showalter C, Sizer PS Jr. Coupling Behavior of the Cervical Spine: A Systematic Review of the Literature. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 2006;29(7):570–5.
6. Buck CA, Dameron FB, Dow MJ, Skowlund HV. Study of normal range of motion in the neck utilizing a bubble goniometer. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1959;40:390–2.
7. Capuano-Pucci D, Rheault W, Aukai J, Bracke M, Day R, Pastrick M. Intratester and intertester reliability of the cervical range of motion device. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1991;72(5):338–40.
8. Canseco K, Albert C, Long J, Khazzam M, Marks R, Harris G. Postoperative Foot And Ankle Kinematics in Rheumatoid Arthritis. J Exp Clin Med 2011;3(5):233–8.
9. Rahni AAA, Yahya I. Obtaining translation from a 6-DOF MEMS IMU - an overview. In : Proceedings of 2007 Asia-Pacific Conference on Applied Electromagnetics; 2007 Dec 4–6; Melaka, Malaysia. art. no. 4603861. 2007.
10. Castro WHM, Sautmann A, Schilgen M, Sautmann M. Noninvasive three-dimensional analysis of cervical spine motion in normal subjects in relation to age and sex: An experimental examination. Spine 2000;25(4):443–9.
11. Park KN, Cynn HS, Kwon OY, et al. Effects of the Abdominal Drawing-In Maneuver on Muscle Activity, Pelvic Motions, and Knee Flexion During Active Prone Knee Flexion in Patients With Lumbar Extension Rotation Syndrome. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2011;92(9):1477–83.
12. Liu T, Inoue Y, Shibata K, Tang X. A wearable inertial sensor system for human motion analysis. In : Proceedings of IEEE International Symposium on Computational Intelligence in Robotics and Automation; 2005 Jun 27–30; Espoo, Finland. p. 409–13. 2005.
13. Kim H, Kim JK, Seo JH, Park YJ, Park YB. Feasibility on Evaluation of Movement System Impairment Syndromes by MEMS-IMU. J Soc Korean Med Diagn 2011;15(3):223–34.
14. Saber-Sheikh K, Bryant EC, Glazzard C, Hamel A, Lee RYW. Feasibility of using inertial sensors to assess human movement. Man Ther 2010;15(1):122–5.
15. Ito T. Walking Motion Analysis Using 3D Acceleration Sensors. In : Proceedings of EMS 2008, European Modelling Symposium, 2nd UKSim European Symposium on Computer Modeling and Simulation; 2008 Sep 8–10; Liverpool, United Kingdom. p. 123–8. 2008.
16. Henriksen M, Lund H, Moe-Nilssen R, Bliddal H, Danneskiod-Samsøe B. Test-retest reliability of trunk accelerometric gait analysis. Gait Posture 2004;19(3):288–97.
17. Theobald PS, Jones MD, Williams JM. Do inertial sensors represent a viable method to reliably measure cervical spine range of motion? Man Ther 2012;17(1):92–6.
18. Godfrey A, Conway R, Meagher D, Olaighin G. Direct measurement of human movement by accelerometry. Med Eng Phys 2008;30(10):1364–86.
19. Tao Liu, Inoue Y, Shibata K, Morioka H. Development of wearable sensor combinations for human lower extremity motion analysis In : Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation 2006; 2006 May 15–19; Orlando, FL, United States. p. 1655–60. 2006.
20. Cardarelli D. An integrated MEMS inertial measurement unit. In : Proceedings of IEEE PLANS, Position Location and Navigation Symposium; 2002 Apr 15–18; In : Palm Springs, CA, United Stated. p. 314–9. 2002.
21. Warnasch A, Killen A. Low cost, high G, Micro Electro-Mechanical Systems(MEMS), Inertial Measurements Unit(IMU) program In : Proceedings of IEEE PLANS, Position Location and Navigation Symposium; 2002 Apr 15–18; Palm Springs, CA, United Stated. p. 299–305. 2002.
22. Lee H, Nicholson LL, Adams RD. Cervical Range of Motion Associations with Subclinical Neck Pain. Spine 2004;29(1):33–40.
23. Strimpakos N, Sakellari V, Gioftsos G, et al. Cervical spine ROM measurements: Optimizing the testing protocol by using a 3D ultrasound-based motion analysis system. Cephalalgia 2005;25(12):1133–45.
24. Vernon H, Mior S. The neck disability index: A study of reliability and validity. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1991;14(7):409–15.
25. Shrout PE, Fleiss JL. Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull 1979;86(2):420–8.
26. Pinsault N, Vuillerme N. Test-retest reliability of centre of foot pressure measures to assess postural control during unperturbed stance. Med Eng Phys 2009;31(2):276–86.
27. Smith K, Hall T, Robinson K. The influence of age, gender, lifestyle factors and sub-clinical neck pain on the cervical flexion-rotation test and cervical range of motion. Man Ther 2008;13(6):552–9.
28. Audette I, Dumas JP, C t JN, De Serres SJ. Validity and between-day reliability of the cervical range of motion(CROM) device. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2010;40(5):318–23.
29. Petersen CM, Johnson RD, Schuit D. Reliability of cervical range of motion using the OSI CA 6000 Spine Motion Analyser on asymptomatic and symptomatic subjects. Man Ther 2000;5(2):82–8.
30. Mannion AF, Klein GN, Dvorak J, Lanz C. Range of global motion of the cervical spine: Intraindividual reliability and the influence of measurement device. Eur Spine J 2000;9(5):379–85.
31. Hole DE, Cook JM, Bolton JE. Reliability and concurrent validity of two instruments for measuring cervical range of motion: effects of age and gender. Man Ther 1995;1(1):36–42.
32. Nilsson N. Measuring passive cervical motion: A study of reliability. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1995;18(5):293–7.
33. Guo LY, Lee SY, Lin CF, et al. Three-dimensional characteristics of neck movements in subjects with mechanical neck disorder. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil 2012;25(1):47–53.
34. Guo LY, Yang CC, Yang CH, Hou YY, Chang JJ, Wu WL. The feasibility of using electromagnetic motion capture system to measure primary and coupled movements of cervical spine. J Med Biol Eng 2011;31(4):245–54.

Article information Continued

Copyright © 2013 KAMMS. Korean Acupuncture & Moxibustion Medicine Society.

This is an Open-Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1.

MEMS-IMU transmitter

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2.

A sample of cervical motion data acquired by MEMS-IMU system

Solid line expresses the axial rotation along the transverse plane, while the other two dotted lines express the extension/flexion along the saggital plane and the lateral bending along the coronal plane. Negative values mean left rotation, flexion, and left bending. In this case, the primary motion is axial rotation, and the regular coupling motions are observed.

Table 1.

Cervical Range of Motion and Reliability

Primary plane Motion Day 1 Day 2 ICC(2,2)b 95 % CI
M(SD) ICC(2,1)a 95 % CI M(SD) ICC(2,1)a 95 % CI
Transverse Left rotation 61.64 (9.72) 0.95 0.75∼0.99 58.17 (9.48) 0.97 0.91∼0.99 0.87 0.53∼0.96
Right rotation 65.12 (10.24) 0.92 0.74∼0.98 63.00 (10.78) 0.98 0.93∼0.99 0.93 0.77∼0.98
Sagittal Extension 61.98 (9.50) 0.97 0.91∼0.99 59.37 (10.38) 0.98 0.92∼1.00 0.74 0.14∼0.93
Flexion 52.81 (7.62) 0.91 0.71∼0.97 55.78 (8.5) 0.86 0.58∼0.96 0.84 0.46∼0.96
Coronal Left bending 39.31 (5.75) 0.87 0.60∼0.96 41.18 (5.68) 0.95 0.84∼0.99 0.88 0.55∼0.97
Right bending 41.08 (4.93) 0.93 0.70∼0.98 41.43 (5.33) 0.77 0.30∼0.94 0.89 0.58∼0.97

M : mean(°). SD : standard deviation(°).

ICC : intraclass correlation coefficient. CI : confidence interval.

a:

intratest repeatability, ICC(2,1), agreement

b:

yest-retest reliability between two consecutive days, ICC(2,2), agreement

Table 2.

Associated Cervical Coupling Motion and Reliability

Primary motion Coupling motion Day 1 Day 2 ICC(2,2)b 95 % CI
M(SD) ICC(2,1)a 95 % CI M(SD) ICC(2,1)a 95 % CI
Left rotation Extension or flexion 0.71 (6.59) 0.93 0.37∼0.99 0.28 (5.69) 0.95 0.84∼0.99 0.91 0.68∼0.97
Lateral bending −1.69 (11.25) 0.98 0.93∼1.00 0.42 (11.22) 0.98 0.93∼1.00 0.97 0.86∼0.99
Right rotation Extension or flexion −3.12 (8.05) 0.98 0.70∼1.00 0.20 (6.42) 0.93 0.79∼0.98 0.90 0.11∼0.98
Lateral bending 1.59 (10.45) 0.98 0.94∼1.00 −0.41 (10.22) 0.99 0.95∼1.00 0.90 0.65∼0.97
Extension Lateral bending 0.86 (4.50) 0.97 0.91∼1.00 −1.00 (3.23) 0.94 0.76∼0.98 0.51 0.00∼0.85
Axial Rotation 11.29 (5.54) 0.96 0.85∼0.99 9.97 (4.41) 0.88 0.64∼0.96 0.13* 0.00∼0.76
Flexion Lateral bending 2.40 (3.19) 0.92 0.74∼0.97 2.90 (3.19) 0.87 0.63∼0.96 0.00* 0.00∼0.65
Axial rotation −3.10 (7.10) 0.93 0.78∼0.98 −0.91 (5.65) 0.93 0.78∼0.98 0.72 0.09∼0.92
Left bending Extension or flexion −9.70 (7.43) 0.81 0.42∼0.94 −9.37 (9.12) 0.93 0.77∼0.98 0.76 0.06∼0.94
Axial rotation −15.08 (8.69) 0.92 0.68∼0.98 −12.34 (6.94) 0.89 0.65∼0.97 0.67 0.00∼0.91
Right bending Extension or flexion −5.04 (7.59) 0.88 0.63∼0.96 −3.05 (6.21) 0.79 0.41∼0.94 0.04* 0.00∼0.76
Axial rotation 14.19 (9.55) 0.93 0.79∼0.98 13.30 (7.42) 0.77 0.18∼0.94 0.71 0.00∼0.92

Positive values mean right rotation, extension, and right bending.

Negative values mean left rotation, flexion, and left bending.

M : mean(°). SD : standard deviation(°).

ICC : intraclass correlation coefficient, CI : confidence interval.

a:

intratest repeatability, ICC(2,1), agreement.

b:

test-retest reliability between two consecutive days, ICC(2,2), agreement.

*:

poor reliabiility.