MDPI Contact

MDPI AG
St. Alban-Anlage 66,
4052 Basel, Switzerland
Support contact
Tel. +41 61 683 77 34
Fax: +41 61 302 89 18

For more contact information, see here.

Advanced Search

You can use * to search for partial matches.

Search Results

1 article matched your search query. Search Parameters:
Keywords = manual material handling

Matches by word:

MANUAL (374) , MATERIAL (4813) , HANDLING (462)

View options
order results:
result details:
results per page:
Articles per page View Sort by
Displaying article 1-50 on page 1 of 1.
Export citation of selected articles as:
Open AccessArticle Evaluation of Two Approaches for Aligning Data Obtained from a Motion Capture System and an In-Shoe Pressure Measurement System
Sensors 2014, 14(9), 16994-17007; doi:10.3390/s140916994
Received: 10 July 2014 / Revised: 13 August 2014 / Accepted: 11 September 2014 / Published: 12 September 2014
Cited by 2 | Viewed by 1497 | PDF Full-text (2636 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text
Abstract
An in-shoe pressure measurement (IPM) system can be used to measure center of pressure (COP) locations, and has fewer restrictions compared to the more conventional approach using a force platform. The insole of an IPM system, however, has its own coordinate system. To
[...] Read more.
An in-shoe pressure measurement (IPM) system can be used to measure center of pressure (COP) locations, and has fewer restrictions compared to the more conventional approach using a force platform. The insole of an IPM system, however, has its own coordinate system. To use an IPM system along with a motion capture system, there is thus a need to align the coordinate systems of the two measurement systems. To address this need, the current study examined two different approaches—rigid body transformation and nonlinear mapping (i.e., multilayer feed-forward neural network (MFNN))—to express COP measurements from an IPM system in the coordinate system of a motion capture system. Ten participants (five male and five female) completed several simulated manual material handling (MMH) activities, and during these activities the performance of the two approaches was assessed. Results indicated that: (1) performance varied between MMH activity types; and (2) a MFNN performed better than or comparable to the rigid body transformation, depending on the specific input variable sets used. Further, based on the results obtained, it was argued that a nonlinear mapping vs. rigid body transformation approach may be more effective to account for shoe deformation during MMH or potentially other types of physical activity. Full article
(This article belongs to the collection Sensors for Globalized Healthy Living and Wellbeing)

Years

Subjects

Refine Subjects

Journals

Refine Journals

Article Types

Refine Types

Countries

Refine Countries
Back to Top