Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T01:17:08.609Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An inverse optimization approach for determining weights of joint displacement objective function for upper body kinematic posture prediction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 July 2011

Qiuling Zou ,
Qinghong Zhang ,
Jingzhou (James) Yang  and
Jared Gragg
Qiuling Zou
Affiliation:
Human-Centric Design Research Lab, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409, USA
Qinghong Zhang
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, Northern Michigan University, Marquette, MI 49855, USA
Jingzhou (James) Yang*
Affiliation:
Human-Centric Design Research Lab, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409, USA
Jared Gragg
Affiliation:
Human-Centric Design Research Lab, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409, USA
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Human posture prediction can often be formulated as a nonlinear multiobjective optimization (MOO) problem. The joint displacement function is considered as a benchmark of human performance measures. When the joint displacement function is used as the objective function, posture prediction is a MOO problem. The weighted-sum method is commonly used to find a Pareto solution of this MOO problem. Within the joint displacement function, the relative value of the weights associated with each joint represents the relative importance of that joint. Usually, weights are determined by trial and error approaches. This paper presents a systematic approach via an inverse optimization approach to determine the weights for the joint displacement function in posture prediction. This inverse optimization problem can be formulated as a bi-level optimization problem. The design variables are joint angles and weights. The cost function is the summation of the differences between two set of joint angles (the design variables and the realistic posture). Constraints include (1) normalized weights within limits and (2) an inner optimization problem to solve for joint angles (predicted posture). Additional constraints such as weight limits and weight linear equality constraints, obtained through observations, are also implemented in the formulation to test the method. A 24 degree of freedom human upper body model is used to study the formulation and visualize the prediction. An in-house motion capture system is used to obtain the realistic posture. Four different percentiles of subjects are selected to run the experiment. The set of weights for the general seated posture prediction is obtained by averaging all weights for all subjects and all tasks. On the basis of obtained set of weights, the predicted postures match the experimental results well.

Keywords

Inverse optimizationPosture predictionWeighted sumMultiobjective optimizationNovel applications of RoboticsDesign
Type
Articles
Information
Robotica , Volume 30 , Issue 3 , May 2012 , pp. 389 - 404
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Bean, J. C., Chaffin, D. B. and Shultz, A. B., “Biomechanical model calculation of muscle contraction forces: A double linear programming method,” J. Biomechanics 21, 59–66 (1988).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Beck, D. J., and Chaffin, D. B., “Evaluation of Inverse Kinematic Models for Posture Prediction,” Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Aided Ergonomics and Safety– (CAES '92), Tampere, Finland, (May 18–20, 1992).Google Scholar
3.Bottaso, C. L., Prilutsky, B. I., Croce, A., Imberti, E. and Sartirana, S., “A numerical procedure for inferring from experimental data the optimization cost functions using a multi-body model of the neuro-musculoskeletal system,” Multibody Syst. Dyn. 16, 123–154 (2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Byun, S., “Development of a Multivariate Biomechanical Posture Prediction Model Using Inverse Kinematics Ph.D. Dissertation,” (Michigan, MI, USA: University of Michigan, 1991).Google Scholar
5.Colson, B., Marcotte, P. and Savard, G., “An overview of bilevel optimization,” Ann. Oper. Res. 153, 235–256 (2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Denavit, J. and Hartenberg, R. S., “A kinematic notation for lower-pair mechanisms based on matrices,” J. Appl. Mech. 77, 215–221 (1955).Google Scholar
7.Das, B. and Sengupta, A. K., “Computer-aided human modeling programs for workstation design,” Ergonomics 38, 1958–1972 (1995).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Das, B. and Behara, D. N., “Three-dimensional workspace for industrial workstations,” Human Factors 40 (4), 633–646 (1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.Dong, Z., Xu, J., Zou, N. and Chai, C., “Posture Prediction Based on Orthogonal Interactive Genetic Algorithm,” Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Natural Computation (2008) vol. 1, pp. 336–340.Google Scholar
10.Dysart, M. J. and Woldstad, J. C., “Posture prediction for static sagittal-plane lifting,” J. Biomech. 29 (10), 1393–1397 (1996).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.Faraway, J. J., Zhang, X. D. and Chaffin, D. B., “Rectifying postures reconstructed from joint angles to meet constraints,” J. Biomech. 32, 733–736 (1999).Google Scholar
12.Gill, P., Murray, W. and Saunders, A., “SNOPT: An SQP Algorithm for Large-Scale Constrained Optimization,” SIAM J. Optim. 12 (4), 979–1006 (2002).Google Scholar
13.Gragg, J., Boothby, R. and Yang, J., “Posture Reconstruction for Mapping Joint Angles from Motion Capture Experiment to Simulation Models,” Proceedings of the HCI International Conference on Digital Human Modelling, Hilton Orlando Bonnet Creek, Orlando, FL, USA (Jul. 9–14, 2011).Google Scholar
14.Gragg, J., Yang, J. and Howard, B., “Hybrid method for driver accommodation using optimization-based digital human models,” Comput. Aided Des. (2010), doi:10.1016/j.cad.2010.11.009.Google Scholar
15.Griffin, M., “The validation of biodynamic models,” Clin. Biomech. 16 (1), S81–S92 (2001).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16.Hagio, K., Sugano, N., Nishii, T., Miki, H., Otake, Y., Hattori, A., Suzuki, N., Yonenobu, K., Yoshikawa, H. and Ochi, T., “A novel system of four-dimensional motion analysis after total hip athroplasty,” J. Orthopaedic Res. 22 (3), 665–70 (2004).Google Scholar
17.Howard, B., Yang, J. and Gragg, J., “Toward a New Digital Pregnant Woman Model and Posture Prediction,” Proceedings of the First International Conference on Applied Digital Human Modeling, Miami, FL, USA (Jul. 17–20, 2010).Google Scholar
18.Jung, E. S., Kee, D., and Chung, M. K., “Reach Posture Prediction of Upper Limb for Ergonomic Workspace Evaluation,” Proceedings of the 36th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors Society, Part 1 (of 2), Atlanta, GA, USA (Oct. 12–16, 1992) vol. 1, pp. 702–706.Google Scholar
19.Jung, E. S., Kee, D. and Chung, M. K., “Upper body reach posture prediction for ergonomics evaluation models,” Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 16 (2), 95–107 (1995).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20.Jung, E. S. and Choe, J., “Human reach posture prediction based on psychophysical discomfort,” Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 18, 173–179 (1996).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21.Kee, D., Jung, E. S. and Chang, S., “A man-machine interface model for ergonomic design,” Comput. Ind. Eng. 27, 365–368 (1994).Google Scholar
22.Kerk, C. J., “Development and Evaluation of a Static Hand Force Exertion Capability Model Using Strength, Stability and Coefficient of Friction,” Ph.D. Dissertation (Michigan, MI, USA: University of Michigan, 1992).Google Scholar
23.Khan, S. U. and Ardil, C., “A Weighted sum technique for the joint optimization of performance and power consumption in data centers,” Int. J. Electr.Comput. Syst. Eng. 3 (1), 35–40 (2009).Google Scholar
24.Kim, I. Y. and Weck, O. L., “Adaptive weighted sum method for multiobjective optimization,” AIAA Paper 2004-4322 (2004).Google Scholar
25.Kim, I. Y. and Weck, O. L., “Adaptive weighted-sum method for bi-objective optimization: Pareto front generation,” Struct. Multidisc. Optim. 29, 149–158 (2005).Google Scholar
26.Ma, L., Wei, Z., Chablat, D., Bennis, F. and Guillaume, F., “Multi-objective optimization method for posture prediction and analysis with consideration of fatigue effect and its application case,” Comput. Ind. Eng. 57 (4), 1235–1246 (Nov. 2009).Google Scholar
27.Messac, A. and Mattson, C. A., “Generating well-distributed sets of pareto points for engineering design using physical programming,” Optim. Eng. 3, 431–450 (2002).Google Scholar
28.Marler, T. and Arora, J. S., “Survey of multi-objective optimization methods for engineering,” Struct. Multidiscip. Optim. 26, 369–395 (2004).Google Scholar
29.Marler, T., Arora, J. S., Yang, J., Kim, H. and Abdel-Malek, K., “Use of multi-objective optimization for digital human posture prediction,” Eng. Optim. 41 (10), 925–943 (2009).Google Scholar
30.Mi, Z., Yang, J. and Abdel-Malek, K., “Optimization-based posture prediction for human upper body,” Robotica 27 (4), 607–620 (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31.Miller, C., Mulavara, A. and Bloomberg, J., “A quasi-static method for determining the characteristic of motion capture camera system in a ‘split-volume’ configuration,” Gait Posture 16 (3), 283–87 (2002).Google Scholar
32.Park, K. S., “A Computerized Simulation Model of Postures during Manual Materials Handling,” Ph.D. Dissertation (Michigan, MI, USA: University of Michigan, 1973).Google Scholar
33.Porter, J. M., Case, K. and Bonney, M. C., “Computer Workspace Modelling,” In: Evaluation of Human Work (Wilson, J. R. and Corlett, E. N., eds.) (Taylor & Francis, London, UK, 1990), pp. 472–499.Google Scholar
34.Robert, J. J., Michele, O. and Gordon, L. H., “Validation of the Vicon 460 Motion Capture System™ for Whole-Body Vibration Acceleration Determination,” Proceedings of the ISB XXth Congress-ASB 29th Annual Meeting, Cleveland, Ohio (Jul. 31–Aug. 5, 2005).Google Scholar
35.Rockafellar, R., “Lagrange multipliers and optimality,” SIAM Rev. 35, 183–238 (1993).Google Scholar
36.Saaty, T. L., “A Scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures,” J. Math. Psychol. 15, 57–68 (1977).Google Scholar
37.Saaty, T. L. and Vargas, L. G., The Logic of Priorities: Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process in Business, Energy, Health, and Transportation (RWS Publications, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 1991).Google Scholar
38.Tolani, D., Goswami, A. and Badler, N., “Real-time inverse kinematics techniques for anthropomorphic limbs,” Graph. Models 62, 353–388 (2000).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
39.Verstraete, M. C. and Soutas-Little, R. W., “A method for computing the three-dimensional angular velocity and acceleration of a body segment from three-dimensional position data,” Trans. ASME 112, 114–118 (1990).Google ScholarPubMed
40.Wang, X. G. and Verriest, J. P., “A geometric algorithm to predict the arm reach posture for computer-aided ergonomic evaluation,” J, Vis. Comput. Animat. 9, 33–47 (1998).3.0.CO;2-Q>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
41.Wang, Q., Xiang, Y. J., Kim, H. J., Arora, J. and Abdel-Malek, K., “Alternative Formulations for Optimization-Based Digital Human Motion Simulation,” SAE Technical Paper, 2005-01-2691, (2005).Google Scholar
42.Wang, X., “Behavior-based inverse kinematics algorithm to predict arm prehension postures for computer-aided ergonomic evaluation,” J. Biomech. 32 (5), 453–460 (1999).Google Scholar
43.Wang, X., Chevalet, N., Monnier, G., Ausejo, S., Suescun, A. and Celigueta, J., “Validation of a Model-Based Motion Reconstruction Method Developed in the REALMAN Project,” Proceedings of the SAE Digital Human Modeling for Design and Engineering Symposium, Iowa City, Iowa, (Jun. 14–16, 2005) Paper no. 2005-01-2743.Google Scholar
44.Winter, D. A., Biomechanics and Motor Control of Human Movement, 3rd ed. (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2004).Google Scholar
45.Woldstad, J. C. and Stewart, G. B., “A computer-based method for recording three-dimensional body postures,” Comput. Ind. Eng. 25 (1–4), 405–407 (Sep. 1993).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
46.Yang, J., Marler, R. T., Kim, H., Arora, J. and Abdel-Malek, K., “Multi-Objective Optimization for Upper Body Posture Prediction,” Proceedings of the 10th AIAA/ISSMO Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization Conference, Albany, New York, USA (Aug. 30–Sept. 1, 2004).Google Scholar
47.Yang, J., Abdel-Malek, K., Marler, T. and Kim, J., “Real-time optimal reach posture prediction in a new interactive virtual environment,” J. Comput. Sci. Tech. 21 (2), 189–198 (2006).Google Scholar
48.Yang, J., Kim, J. H., Abdel-Malek, K., Marler, T., Beck, S. and Kopp, G. R., “A new digital human environment and assessment of vehicle interior design,” Comput.-Aided Des. 39, 548–558 (2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
49.Yang, J., Feng, X., Xiang, Y., Kim, J. and Rajulu, S., “Determining the three-dimensional relation between the skeletal elements of the human shoulder complex,” J. Biomech. 42 (11), 1762–1767 (2009).Google Scholar
50.Yang, J., Marler, T. and Rahmatalla, S., “Multi-objective optimization-based kinematic posture prediction: development and validation,” Robotica 29 (2), 245–253 (2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
51.Zhang, W. H. and Gao, T., “A min–max method with adaptive weightings for uniformly spaced Pareto optimum points,” Comput. Struct. 84, 1760–1769 (2006).Google Scholar
52.Zou, Q., Zhang, Q. and Yang, J., “Determining Weights of Joint Displacement Objective Function in Optimization-Based Posture Prediction,” Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Applied Digital Human Modeling, Miami, Florida (Jul. 17–20, 2010).Google Scholar