Alternative Representation of the Shoulder Orientation Based on the Tilt-and-Torsion Angles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The International Society of Biomechanics (ISB) has proposed standardized recommendations for recording human joint motion. The Euler angles-the orientation representation currently proposed by the ISB-have two drawbacks, namely, the issue of singularities (gimbal lock) and the difficulty to obtain clinical and interpretable orientation representation for compound movements. The orientation representation of the shoulder joint with the Euler angles is particularly challenging due to its broad range of motion. This paper proposes and evaluates an alternative orientation representation for shoulder movement based on the tilt-and-torsion representation, a method that aims at providing a more clinically interpretable solution for describing joint movements compared to the standard Euler angles. Three studies were performed to compare the different orientation representation methods. The first two studies consist in simulations of arm elevation in different planes. The third study is an experiment using inertial-measurement-units with one test subject performing shoulder elevation movements in different planes. The tilt-and-torsion representation is then compared with different Euler angle conventions. The results show that Euler angles are biased or clinically uninterpretable for compound movements. Conversely, tilt-and-torsion representation does not suffer from these limitations. Although not extensive, the experiments suggest that the tilt-and-torsion representation has the potential to better represent human movements and provide more clinically interpretable results than the Euler angles.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".