A Brief Feature Comparison of =
3D-MotionprintSM Imaging
To Traditional Functional Capa=
city
Evaluation
BioMotion’s unique 3D-MotionprintSM Imaging Functional Evaluation provides physicians, case managers, TPAs and employers with a comprehensive, objective and evidence-based assessment of a claimant’s true physical abilities.&= nbsp; Using the same advanced technology employed by university research laboratories, NASA, and even the motion picture industry to capture, quanti= fy and analyze human movement and exertion, BioMotion is able to achieve a lev= el of objectivity, accuracy and reliability of measurement that significantly exceeds those provided by other functional evaluation services. The table, below, summarizes the k= ey advantages of 3D-Motionprint technology over existing FCEs= .
|
Feature<= o:p> |
3=
D-MotionprintSM |
Traditio=
nal
FCEs |
|
Accurately
quantify full 3D range of movement and gait (ability to stand, walk, move=
and
work in various postures on the job). |
High
accuracy measurement and assessment of gait, movement and postural abilit=
ies
with objective indicators of subject reliability. ·
Gait
temporal/spatial measurements quantify pace, stride length, single and do=
uble
limb support phases and swing phase for each leg. ·
Compariso=
ns to
both population norms and injured vs. uninjured side provide true
representation of residual ability/deficit. ·
Quantific=
ation
of all extremity joint movements and trunk orientation during typical
job-related ambulatory and postural activities allows for: o&=
nbsp;
Determina=
tion
of root cause of musculoskeletal disorders o&=
nbsp;
Objective
impact of those disorders on functional abilities. ·
Reliabili=
ty of
performance determined through an objective comparison of repeated, measu=
red
activities, including both distraction techniques and variation in the
sequencing of component motions. |
·
Movement =
and
postural activities are typically observed, with determination of “=
able”
or “not able” left to examiner judgment. ·
Some prot=
ocols
time movement activities to quantify level of performance. o&=
nbsp;
Shows impa=
ct of
disorder on rate of activity, but not on musculoskeletal function or
dysfunction. o&=
nbsp;
No informa=
tion
relating to root cause of injury or disorder. o&=
nbsp;
No compari=
son of
injured vs. uninjured sides, or potential risk factors from modified
mechanics. ·
Only manu=
al (static)
measurement of individual joint movement – no objective correlation=
to
abilities. ·
No object=
ive
method to assess subject reliability of movement. |
|
Safely
and reliably assess strength in typical work activities. |
Synchronized
whole-body static strength assessment simultaneously measures body postur=
es,
loads, exerted strength and consistency of effort. ·
Research-=
based
isometric strength protocols are documented to be both safe and accurate =
for
determination of maximal effort. ·
Objective
assessment of subject reliability achieved through a unique process of
repetition with postural and mechanical variation to detect managed effor=
t. ·
The only
functional evaluation that can assess true dynamic body loading during
exertion by the use of synchronized motion capture with measurement of fo=
ot
(and hand) contact forces. |
·
Strength
activities are typically observed with subjects lifting progressively wei=
ghted
containers. o&=
nbsp;
Fatigue an=
d risk
increase with multiple trials of added weight. o&=
nbsp;
Subject or
examiner often stop test due to stability or safety issues prior to maxim=
al
effort. o&=
nbsp;
No objecti=
ve
reliability criteria. ·
Some prot=
ocols
measure isometric resistance at hands. o&=
nbsp;
No informa=
tion
on consistency of body posture – only consistency of force at hands=
. o&=
nbsp;
No informa=
tion
on mechanical compensatory strategies resulting from injury. o&=
nbsp;
No informa=
tion
on body loading. |
|
Assess
balance for prolonged standing, walking or working on uneven surfaces,
climbing and working in confined areas. |
Dynamic, synchron=
ized
force platform and 3D body mechanics measurements to quantify balance abi=
lity
with one or two leg support.
Identify workplace risks and screen for musculoskeletal or
neurological deficiencies. |
Balance
may be observed, but seldom directly measured. Difficult to establish an ability
level or to assess degree of risk or possible source of balance deficienc=
y. |
|
Quantify
upper extremity function. |
·
Grip and =
pinch
strength testing with comparison to population norms, and determination of
reliability of effort. ·
Standard =
coarse
and fine motor dexterity tests with comparisons to population norms. ·
3D motion
analysis for quantification of dynamic reaching and other motor activitie=
s. o&=
nbsp;
Objective
determination of timing, distance and angle of reach for both standard and
customized activities. o&=
nbsp;
Subject
reliability assessed through repetition with postural and mechanical
variation to detect managed effort. o Only assessment method that can identify and o=
bjectively
document compensatory movement strategies. |
·
Similar g=
rip,
pinch and dexterity testing. ·
Reaching =
and
other motor activities are typically observed, with determination of
“able” or “not able” left to examiner judgment. ·
A few pro=
tocols
quantify abilities by timing movement activities. o&=
nbsp;
No ability=
to
determine consistency of either distance or angle of movement. o&=
nbsp;
Reliabilit=
y only
based on variation in timing, not movement. o&=
nbsp;
No informa=
tion
relating to changes in mechanics due to injury. |