Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interest in arm movements has increased tremendously in recent years. This interest has been motivated by different goals: the desire for a more scientific approach to replacement or support of the joints of the upper limb, the need for input to biomechanical computer models, and the clinical interest in comparing normal movements with pathological movements. The availability of commercial marker-tracking systems has facilitated achieving these goals. However, the complex nature of arm movements and the lack of standardized movements raises many challenges. In comparison with gait analysis, few arm motion analyses have been conducted. The purpose of this review is to aid researchers and clinicians interested in conducting an arm motion study in choosing the appropriate methodology. This is accomplished both by describing the methods used in past investigations and by highlighting important findings. Due to the variety of research goals, there is sometimes more than one appropriate method and the choice is left to the reader. Nevertheless, since it is extremely desirable to record and express the data in a standardized way, standardization proposals are described. This review, which focuses on methodology rather than results, addresses the following topics: motivations and tasks studied, tracking methods, the shoulder complex, joint centres and rotation axes, marker positions, coordinate system definitions, terminology and rotations, accuracy, and presentation methods.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".