Quantifying Forearm Soft Tissue Motion from Massless Skin Markers following Forward Fall Hand Impacts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Investigating soft tissue motion related to impact events is important for understanding how the body mitigates potentially injurious forces through shock attenuation. Objectives: The aims of this study were to: 1) quantify displacement and velocity of the forearm soft tissues following forward fall impacts; and 2) compare two massless skin marker designs (single layer, uniform (SLU) design; stacked, non-uniform (SNU) design) in terms of how well they could be tracked over varying skin pigmentations using automated motion capture software. Methods: Two participant groups (skin pigmentation: light – 9F, 8M; dark – 9F, 6M) underwent simulated forward fall hand impacts for each marker design using a torso-release apparatus. Marker positions associated with planar motion of forearm soft tissues during impact were automatically tracked (ProAnalyst®) in the proximal-distal and anterior-posterior axes from high speed recordings (5000 f/s). Mean peak displacements and velocities for eight forearm regions were then calculated (LabVIEW®). Results: Overall, soft tissue displacement and velocity increased from distal to proximal forearm regions. The greatest displacement (1.47 cm) and velocity (112.8 cm/s) occurred distally toward the wrist. Soft tissue impact responses between sexes did not differ, on average (p > 0.05). The SLU and SNU markers produced different kinematic values (p < 0.05); however, the magnitudes of, and consequently meaningfulness of these statistical differences for automatically tracking soft tissue motion, were negligible (displacement: ≤ 0.05 cm; velocity: ≤ 2.5 cm/s). Conclusions: Forearm soft tissue motion was successfully quantified for forward fall hand impacts; both marker designs were deemed functionally equivalent.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".