Tweet
I have been developing a mathematical model of the human body, and
I looked in the Literature to find data about the mass distribution of the
trunk. But what I found is very disappointing:
- Liu et al. (1971, Aerospace Medicine, p. 650-657) dissected the
trunk of one cadaver, and reported mass and thickness of 24 transverse
crossections (one for each vertebra), plus the basin. Unfortunately
their data appear unacceptably biased, when the calculated position of the
whole trunk CM is compared, after appropriate adjustments, with data reported
by Dempster, Clauser et al., Chandler et al., and Braune and Fischer.
- Dempster (Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, 1955) sectioned the whole
body of one cadaver into 1 inch thick transverse crossections, and
measured their mass, but neglected to indicate the position of anatomical
landmarks relative to the crossections. Moreover, the limbs were not removed
from the trunk, and their mass cannot be distinguished from the mass of the
trunk segment (as defined by Dempster himself) at the level of hips and
shoulders.
- Parks (Doctoral thesis, Univ. of Michigan, 1959), sectioned the
trunk of a cadaver after removing the limbs, but did not report the mass
of each crossection...
CONCLUSION: The data are not reliable and/or sufficient. (I can
send more detailed explanations privately to interested readers)
Is there anybody in the readership that can help me to find other
published or unpublished studies about the distribution of the trunk mass?
Besides, could you also send me the name(s) of other e-mail lists to
which I could send this message?
I would greatly appreciate your help. Thanks in advance,
Paolo de Leva
Biomechanics Lab - Kinesiology Dep.
HPER 071
INDIANA UNIVERSITY,
Bloomington, IN 47405.
INTERNET ADDRESS: PDELEVA@ucs.indiana.edu
BITNET ADDRESS: PDELEVA@IUBACS
I looked in the Literature to find data about the mass distribution of the
trunk. But what I found is very disappointing:
- Liu et al. (1971, Aerospace Medicine, p. 650-657) dissected the
trunk of one cadaver, and reported mass and thickness of 24 transverse
crossections (one for each vertebra), plus the basin. Unfortunately
their data appear unacceptably biased, when the calculated position of the
whole trunk CM is compared, after appropriate adjustments, with data reported
by Dempster, Clauser et al., Chandler et al., and Braune and Fischer.
- Dempster (Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, 1955) sectioned the whole
body of one cadaver into 1 inch thick transverse crossections, and
measured their mass, but neglected to indicate the position of anatomical
landmarks relative to the crossections. Moreover, the limbs were not removed
from the trunk, and their mass cannot be distinguished from the mass of the
trunk segment (as defined by Dempster himself) at the level of hips and
shoulders.
- Parks (Doctoral thesis, Univ. of Michigan, 1959), sectioned the
trunk of a cadaver after removing the limbs, but did not report the mass
of each crossection...
CONCLUSION: The data are not reliable and/or sufficient. (I can
send more detailed explanations privately to interested readers)
Is there anybody in the readership that can help me to find other
published or unpublished studies about the distribution of the trunk mass?
Besides, could you also send me the name(s) of other e-mail lists to
which I could send this message?
I would greatly appreciate your help. Thanks in advance,
Paolo de Leva
Biomechanics Lab - Kinesiology Dep.
HPER 071
INDIANA UNIVERSITY,
Bloomington, IN 47405.
INTERNET ADDRESS: PDELEVA@ucs.indiana.edu
BITNET ADDRESS: PDELEVA@IUBACS