No announcement yet.

Re: ISB axis conventions

This topic is closed.
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: ISB axis conventions

    I have been monitoring the discussion of the "standardization" of axis
    conventions, and thought I would throw in my humble opinion.

    As far as I am concerned, the only convincing argument for the ISB 3D
    axis standard is that it maintains compatibility with conventional 2D
    axis descriptions. My personal feeling is that 3D analysis is a
    completely different world than 2D analysis. A clear example of this
    is the difficulty associated with uniquely describing a 3D rotation,
    which has no equivalent in the 2D world. I firmly believe that, in
    most cases, it is inappropriate to be comparing 2D data to 3D data for
    human movement, since truly "planar" natural movement does not exist.

    With this in mind, I would suggest that basing a 3D standard on 2D
    conventions makes little sense. In most of the 3D dynamics world, the
    Z-axis is the axis of gravity (vertical) axis, and I believe that we
    should maintain this convention in biomechanics reporting. If a 2D
    standard is necessary, it can (and perhaps should) be different than
    the 3D standard.

    ************************************************** **********************
    Scott Tashman, Ph.D.

    Head, Motion Analysis Section Assistant Professor
    Bone and Joint Center Department of Orthopaedics
    Henry Ford Hospital School of Medicine
    2799 W. Grand Blvd. Case Western Reserve University
    Detroit, MI 48202

    Voice: (313) 876-8680 or 876-7572
    FAX: (313) 556-8812 or 876-8064
    ************************************************** **********************