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

Hyun Ho Kim; Kyung Wook Kim; Ji Min Park; Eun Seok Kim; Min Jun Lee; Jung Won Kang; Sang Hoon Lee; Young Bae Park

doi:10.13045/acupunct.2013019

J Acupunct Res > Volume 30(4); 2013 > Article

Kim, Kim, Park, Kim, Lee, Kang, Lee, and Park: Test-retest Reliability and Intratest Repeatability of Measuring Cervical Range of Motion Using Inertial Measurement Unit

Original Article

The Acupuncture 2013; 30(4): 25-33.

Published online: September 20, 2013

DOI: https://doi.org/10.13045/acupunct.2013019

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

Hyun Ho Kim¹, Kyung Wook Kim², Ji Min Park², Eun Seok Kim², Min Jun Lee², Jung Won Kang², Sang Hoon Lee², Young Bae Park^1,^*

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 July 17, 2013 Revised August 24, 2013 Accepted August 24, 2013

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.

See the Original "".

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.

Key Words: 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.

Table 1.

Cervical Range of Motion and Reliability

Primary plane	Motion	Day 1			Day 2			ICC(2,2)^b	95 % CI
Primary plane	Motion	M(SD)	ICC(2,1)^a	95 % CI	M(SD)	ICC(2,1)^a	95 % CI	ICC(2,2)^b	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
Transverse	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
Sagittal	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
Coronal	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
Primary motion	Coupling motion	M(SD)	ICC(2,1)^a	95 % CI	M(SD)	ICC(2,1)^a	95 % CI	ICC(2,2)^b	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
Left rotation	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
Right rotation	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
Extension	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
Flexion	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
Left bending	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
Right bending	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.

VI. 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. 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. 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. 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; 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. 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.