modeling the index finger of a clinician during the course ... · yasser ashraf gandomi april 26,...
Post on 23-Sep-2020
4 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Modeling the index finger of a clinician duringthe course of physical examthe course of physical exam
By:
Yasser Ashraf GandomiApril 26, 2012University of Tennessee
Motivation:
To model the force applied by index finger of a clinician duringthe course of physical examthe course of physical exam
Denniz Zolnoun, MD, MPH
In particular:
Denniz Zolnoun, MD, MPHAssociate Professor; Director, Vulvar Clinic
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, UNCDivision of Advanced Laparoscopy and Pelvic Pain
To investigate the contact forces being applied by the index fingerof the clinician during different postures.
4/30/2012
What other researchers have done before?Table1: Prior studies regarding index finger modeling
Model Year Method Equilibrium equations
K. S. Fok et al. 2008 Minimize tendon forces based Ten (10) force and
Table1: Prior studies regarding index finger modeling
(2008) on muscle PCSA cost function , non‐linear optimization
moment equations based on four DOF
Vigouroux et 2007 Minimize tendon forces based Four (4) momentVigouroux et al. (2007)
2007 Minimize tendon forces based on muscle PCSA cost function, non‐linear optimization
Four (4) moment equations based on four DOF
Sancho‐Bru et al. (2001)
2001 Minimize tendon forces based on muscle PCSA cost function, non‐linear optimization,
d l
Four (4) moment equations based on four DOF
excursion model
Li et al. (2001) 2001 Direct solution to simultaneous equations
Three (3) moment equations based on
4/30/2012
equations equations based on three DOF
The Musculoskeletal Model:
Skeletal Modeling:1‐ 3D2‐ Four segments (Metacarpal Bone, Proximal Phalanx, Middle Phalanx, Distal Phalanx) 3‐ Three joints
Fig 1: Index finger schematic model
Muscular Modeling:Flexor and Extensor muscles
Fig. 1: Index finger schematic model
Fig. 2: Index finger including muscles4/30/2012
The SIMM Model:
Upper‐extremity right‐side model
Fig. 3: The imported SIMMmodelFig. 3: The imported SIMM model
4/30/2012
Two‐dimensional equations of motion tol l t fi j i t tcalculate finger joint torques:
Newton‐Euler inverse dynamic approach:dynamic approach:Index finger segments wereapproximated by cylinderswith circular cross sections.
Fig. 4: Simplified index model with joints and segments
Torque of each joint is expressed in terms of mass M, centrifuge R, coriolis C, gravity G and external force F
(1)
4/30/2012
G, and external force F
Joint equations:Table 2: Geometrical and mass properties of the segments
Secondmc 8.3e‐6 0.016 3.9e‐7 4.1e‐6
2proxph 2.8e‐6 0.0054 6.7e‐8 2.4e‐6
2midph 6e‐7 0.0011 5e‐9 1.6e‐7p
2distph 2e‐7 0.0004 8e‐10 3.5e‐8
(2)
(3)(3)
(4)
(5)
4/30/2012Fig. 5: Simplified index model with joints and segments
(6)
Contact model:To achieve the desired normal force, since the index finger is covered by soft‐viscoelastic layer, the dynamic model of the contact was modeled based on the Hunt‐Crossley model.
The Hunt‐Crossley model : This model incorporates a spring in parallel with a nonlinear damper to model the viscoelastic dynamics.
(7)(8)
(9)
(10)
4/30/2012Fig. 6: The Hunt‐Crossley model
Experimental set‐up:
Fig 7: Real time data acquisition was conducted via a computer interface calibrated to A) Wegner Digitalalgometer® custom fitted with a cotton swab for the purposes of mucosal sensitivity assessment, B) ForceSensing Resistor (FSR) affixed on plastic thimble to examine pelvic muscles.Sensing Resistor (FSR) affixed on plastic thimble to examine pelvic muscles.
Experimental findings:‐ The average calculated contact forces from sensory 18‐25 N
4/30/2012
‐ The maximum applied force 30N
Results:
Fig. 8: Normal contact forces variation with contact layer’s distance
4/30/2012Fig. 9: Frictional contact forces variation with contact layer’s distance
Fig. 10: Normal contact force for different contact surfaces
4/30/2012Fig. 11: Frictional contact force for different contact surfaces
Fig. 12: Flexor muscle forces for different contact surfaces
4/30/2012Fig. 13: Extensor muscle forces for different contact surfaces
Fig. 14: A schematic review of fingers’ joints
4/30/2012
Fig. 15: Proximal interphalangeal joint flexion for different contact surfaces
Fig. 16: Metacarpal phalangeal joint flexion for different contact surfaces
4/30/2012 Fig. 17: Distal interphalangeal joint flexion for different contact surfaces
Discussion:
Findings:
1‐ The study revealed that the contact forces predicted by the model based on theC l ’ i l i d l i d d i h h i lHunt‐Crossley’s viscoelastic contact model are in good accord with the experimental
data.
2‐ It was shown that by increasing the contact surface’s distance from the clinician’sy gindex finger through the process of pressure sensing; both the normal and frictionalcontact forces increase to a specific level then by further increasing; these loadsdecrease.
3‐ The findings indicated that by decreasing the stiffness of the contact surface (shiftingfrom muscular body to fatty one), the normal and frictional contact forces decrease. Inaddition, by decreasing the stiffness, the contact forces reach their optimummagnitudes later.
4‐ It was concluded that the flexor muscle forces first increase by increased contactsurface’s stiffness then further increasing the stiffness yield to decreased musclesurface s stiffness then, further increasing the stiffness, yield to decreased muscleforces.
4/30/2012
Acknowledgement:Acknowledgement:
4/30/2012
Thank You:Thank You
Q ?4/30/2012
Questions?
top related