linear encoder 3d (MOCAP Inc)
Structured Review
Linear Encoder 3d, supplied by MOCAP Inc, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
https://www.bioz.com/product/3d+encoder/linear+encoder+3d/pm37440324-195-17-44
Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
Images
Related Articles
other:Article Title: Devices to measure calf raise test outcomes: A narrative review. Article Snippet: Authors (year of publication) Participants Reliability or concurrent validity of outcomes InterpretationaCRT devices Andreasen et al. (2020) Linear encoder 3D MOCAP Patients with acute achilles tendon rupture (n = 45, 36 males and 9 females) Total work measurement error (%) Linear encoder heel versus MOCAP heel Injured side = 1.5% (p = 0.163) Non‐injured side = 2.9% (p < 0.0001) Linear encoder heel versus MOCAP pelvis injured side = 21% (p < 0.0001) Non‐injured side = 24.7% (p < 0.0001) Total work concurrent validity (linear regression slope [95% CI]) Linear encoder heel versus MOCAP heel Injured side = 0.95 [0.91, 1.00] Non‐injured side = 1.00 [0.98, 1.03] Lienar encoder heel versus MOCAP pelvis Injured side = 0.79 [0.70, 0.87] Non‐injured side = 0.92 [0.86, 0.97] Limb symmetry index (linear regression slope [95% CI]) Linear encoder heel versus MOCAP heel 0.98 [0.92; 1.02] Lienar encoder heel versus MOCAP pelvis 1.03 [0.90, 1.09] The CRT performed using the heel as a surrogate for centre of body mass overestimates the total work by 21.0%–24.7% versus the |
![Ablation study: performance measures ± standard error of the mean. ‘ \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{upgreek} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document} $\checkmark$\end{document} ’ indicates included, ‘×’ indicates excluded model components; the first two rows are the complete CANDELA model with the two different pre-training stragies. Models marked ‘ † ’ are significantly worse than CANDELA using only one pre-training task. Models marked ‘*’ are significantly better (pairwise t -test, α = 0.05, corrected for multiple testing using Holm–Šídák). Bold values indicate the best configuration](https://pub-med-central-html-table-images-cdn.bioz.com/pub_med_central_ids_ending_with_5499/pmc11055499/pmc11055499__tbl2__3d_ascii32_infomax__infomax_ascii32_inc.jpg)