Jan 12, 2001 - Comparison of ImageTwin scanner models: 2T4 and 2T4s. 6. 3. ...... 2cm below the Adam's apple and at the level of the 7 th cervical vertebra ...
BODY MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES: A COMPARISON OF THREE-DIMENSIONAL BODY SCANNING AND PHYSICAL ANTHROPOMETRIC METHODS
By Karla Peavy Simmons
Submitted to the TTM Graduate Faculty College of Textiles North Carolina State University in partial fulfillment of the A1 requirement for the Ph.D. degree in Textile Technology and Management
Raleigh, North Carolina January 12, 2001
Table of Contents
Page # LIST OF TABLES
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
viii
1.
INTRODUCTION
2.
THREE-DIMENSIONAL BODY SCANNING TECHNOLOGY 2.1 Textile/Clothing Technology Corporation/ImageTwin 2.1.1 History 2.1.2 ImageTwin systems 2.1.3 System design 2.2 Cyberware 2.2.1 History 2.2.2 Cyberware systems 2.2.3 Cyberware system design 2.3 SYMCAD 2.3.1 History 2.3.2 SYMCAD system models 2.3.3 SYMCAD system design
2 4 4 5 6 9 9 9 11 13 13 13 14
3.
TRADITIONAL ANTHROPOMETRY 3.1 Historical Practice 3.2 Methodology and Instrumentation 3.2.1 Methodology 3.2.2 Instrumentation 3.3 Landmarks
14 14 16 16 17 20
4.
COMPARISON OF THE TRADITIONAL ANTHROPOMETRICAL METHOD WITH THREE-DIMENSIONAL BODY SCANNING METHODS 4.1 Neck-Midneck 4.1.1 Traditional measurement method 4.1.2 ImageTwin method 4.1.3 Cyberware method 4.1.4 SYMCAD method 4.1.5 Discussion 4.2 Neck-Neckbase 4.2.1 Traditional measurement method 4.2.2 ImageTwin method 4.2.3 Cyberware method
27
Karla P. Simmons
1
ii
29 29 29 29 29 29 30 30 30 30 A-1 Paper
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.9
4.2.4 SYMCAD method 4.2.5 Discussion Chest Circumference 4.3.1 Traditional measurement method 4.3.2 ImageTwin method 4.3.3 Cyberware method 4.3.4 SYMCAD method 4.3.5 Discussion Bust Circumference 4.4.1 Traditional measurement method 4.4.2 ImageTwin method 4.4.3 Cyberware method 4.4.4 SYMCAD method 4.4.5 Discussion Waist-Natural Indentation 4.5.1 Traditional measurement method 4.5.2 ImageTwin method 4.5.3 Cyberware method 4.5.4 SYMCAD method 4.5.5 Discussion Waist-Navel (Omphalion) 4.6.1 Traditional measurement method 4.6.2 ImageTwin method 4.6.3 Cyberware method 4.6.4 SYMCAD method 4.6.5 Discussion Hip Circumference 4.7.1 Traditional measurement method 4.7.2 ImageTwin method 4.7.3 Cyberware method 4.7.4 SYMCAD method Seat 4.8.1 Traditional measurement method 4.8.2 ImageTwin method 4.8.3 Cyberware method 4.8.4 SYMCAD method 4.8.5 Discussion Sleeve Length 4.9.1 Traditional measurement method 4.9.2 ImageTwin method 4.9.3 Cyberware method 4.9.4 SYMCAD method 4.9.5 Discussion
Karla P. Simmons
iii
Page # 30 30 31 31 31 31 31 31 32 32 32 32 32 32 33 33 33 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 35 35 35 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 37 37 37 37 38 38 38 38 38
A-1 Paper
4.10
4.11
4.12
4.13
4.14
4.15
4.16
Arm Length 4.10.1 Traditional measurement method 4.10.2 ImageTwin method 4.10.3 Cyberware method 4.10.4 SYMCAD method 4.10.5 Discussion Inseam 4.11.1 Traditional measurement method 4.11.2 ImageTwin method 4.11.3 Cyberware method 4.11.4 SYMCAD method 4.11.5 Discussion Outseam 4.12.1 Traditional measurement method 4.12.2 ImageTwin method 4.12.3 Cyberware method 4.12.4 SYMCAD method 4.12.5 Discussion Shoulder Length 4.13.1 Traditional measurement method 4.13.2 ImageTwin method 4.13.3 Cyberware method 4.13.4 SYMCAD method 4.13.5 Discussion Across Chest 4.14.1 Traditional measurement method 4.14.2 ImageTwin method 4.14.3 Cyberware method 4.14.4 SYMCAD method 4.14.5 Discussion Across Back 4.15.1 Traditional measurement method 4.15.2 ImageTwin method 4.15.3 Cyberware method 4.15.4 SYMCAD method 4.15.5 Discussion Back of Neck to Waist Length 4.16.1 Traditional measurement method 4.16.2 ImageTwin method 4.16.3 Cyberware method 4.16.4 SYMCAD method 4.16.5 Discussion
Karla P. Simmons
iv
Page # 38 38 39 39 39 39 40 40 40 40 40 40 41 41 41 41 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 43 43 43 43 43 43 44 44 44 44 44 44 45 45 45 45 45 45
A-1 Paper
4.17
4.18
4.19
4.20
4.21
Rise 4.17.1 Traditional measurement method 4.17.2 ImageTwin method 4.17.3 Cyberware method 4.17.4 SYMCAD method 4.17.5 Discussion Crotch Length 4.18.1 Traditional measurement method 4.18.2 ImageTwin method 4.18.3 Cyberware method 4.18.4 SYMCAD method 4.18.5 Discussion Thigh Circumference 4.19.1 Traditional measurement method 4.19.2 Traditional measurement method for mid-thigh circumference 4.19.3 ImageTwin method 4.19.4 Cyberware method 4.19.5 SYMCAD method 4.19.6 Discussion Bicep Circumference 4.20.1 Traditional measurement method 4.20.2 ImageTwin method 4.20.3 Cyberware method 4.20.4 SYMCAD method 4.20.5 Discussion Wrist Circumference 4.21.1 Traditional measurement method 4.21.2 ImageTwin method 4.21.3 Cyberware method 4.21.4 SYMCAD method 4.21.5 Discussion
Page # 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 47 47 47 47 47 47 48 48 48 48 48 48 49 49 49 49 49 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
5.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 Conclusions 5.2 Recommendations
51 51 54
6.
REFERENCES
55
7.
APPENDIX 7.1 Appendix A 7.2 Appendix B
63
Karla P. Simmons
v
A-1 Paper
List of Tables
Page # 4
1.
Current major scanning systems
2.
Comparison of ImageTwin
3.
Comparison of Cyberware scanner models: WB4 and WBX
11
4.
Summary of anthropometric tools and usages
19
5.
Landmarks terms and definitions
21
6.
Mid-neck and neckbase terms used in selected scanner models
31
7.
Chest and bust terms used in selected scanner models
33
8.
Waist-natural indentation and waist-navel terms used in selected scanner models
35
9.
Hip circumference and seat terms used in selected scanner models
37
10.
Sleeve length and arm length terms used in selected scanner models
39
11.
Inseam terms used in selected scanner models
41
12.
Outseam terms used in selected scanner models
42
13.
Shoulder length terms used in selected scanner models
43
14.
Across chest terms used in selected scanner models
43
15.
Across back terms used in selected scanner models
44
16.
Back of neck to waist length terms used in selected scanner models
45
17.
Rise terms used in selected scanner models
46
18.
Crotch length terms used in selected scanner models
47
19.
Thigh circumference terms used in selected scanner models
49
Karla P. Simmons
scanner models: 2T4 and 2T4s
vi
6
A-1 Paper
Page # 20.
Bicep circumference terms used in selected scanner models
50
21.
Wrist circumference terms used in selected scanner models
51
22.
Summary of traditional measurement terms compared to selected scanner model terms
53
Karla P. Simmons
vii
A-1 Paper
List of Figures Page # 1.
Patterned grating in the ImageTwin
2.
Booth layout of the ImageTwin
3.
3D point cloud
8
4.
Segmentation of the body
8
5.
Printout available to subject
8
6.
Cyberware 3D whole body scanner: Model WB4
10
7.
Cyberware 3D whole body scanner: Model WBX
10
8.
Cyberware scanning positions
12
9.
Scanning booth of the SYMCAD TurboFlash/3D
13
10.
Standard anthropometric tools: (a) anthropometer, (b) calipers, (c) sliding compass, (d) tape measure
18
11.
Diagram of principle planes used in anthropometry and terms of orientation
19
12.
Anatomical points used in locating body landmarks on the front of the body
24
13.
Anatomical points used in locating body landmarks on the back of the body
25
14.
Anatomical points used in locating body landmarks on the side of the body
26
Karla P. Simmons
scanner
scanner
viii
7 7
A-1 Paper
BODY MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES: A COMPARISON OF THREEDIMENSIONAL BODY SCANNING AND PHYSICAL ANTHROPOMETRIC METHODS
Introduction
“No one – not even the most brilliant scientist alive today – really knows where science is taking us. We are aboard a train which is gathering speed, racing down a track on which there are an unknown number of switches leading to unknown destinations. No single scientist is in the engine cab and there may be demons at the switch. Most of society is in the caboose looking backward.” (Lapp, Ralph E., The New Priesthood. New York: Harper & Row, 1961, p.29)
In 1961, Ralph Lapp, a scientist turned writer, made these comments about the unknown directions where science would lead us. Little did he know that just a few years later, a new technology would be developed that would revolutionize many industries by the end of the 21st century. This new technology is three-dimensional (3D) non-contact body scanning. Although body scanning applications have been used in many areas of study, the apparel industry is anxiously researching its usage for apparel design and the mass customization of garments. A major frustration for consumer shopping of apparel is finding garments that are comfortable and fit properly (Goldsberry & Reich, 1989). This frustration is caused by the current sizing system, which was taken from an anthropometric study conducted in 1941. Women are shaped differently today than six decades ago. New studies are needed to record anthropometric data of today’s culture.
Karla P. Simmons
1
A-1 Paper
Three-dimensional body scanning is capable of extracting an infinite number of types of data. However, a problem exists in the consistency of measuring techniques between scanners. Among the several scanners that are currently available, significant variance exists in how each captures specific body measurements. Until the data capture process of specific body measurements can be standardized or communicated among scanning systems, this island of technology cannot be utilized for its maximum benefit within the apparel industry. This paper will to a) give a brief description of several major body scanners, b) discuss traditional anthropometry with regards to landmarks and body dimension data, and c) present a comparison of traditional anthropometry with the measurement techniques for each scanner. Three-Dimensional Body Scanning Technology When measuring a large number of locations on the human body, the most desirable method would be one of non-contact. Before the turn of the century, surveyors were using non-contact measurement from a distance to determine the shape of the earth’s surface (West, 1993). Their system of triangulation would become the basis of modern methods whereas a light sensing device would replace the theodolite1. In 1964, a full-scale male dummy was designed with anthropometric measuring that utilized a simple threedimensional technique (Lovesey). Also in 1964, Vietorisz used a light source and an arrangement of photo detectors to measure a person’s silhouette.
1
A theodolite is a surveyor’s instrument for measuring horizontal and vertical angles (Webster’s, 1987). Karla P. Simmons A-1 Paper 2
In 1979, Ito used an arrangement of lights with a collection of photo detectors, which were rotated around the body being measured. A similar system in principle was developed by Takada and Escki (1981), but with a different setup of lights and photo detectors. In 1984, Halioua, Krishnamurphy, Liu, and Chiang improved upon a method by Meadows, Johnson, and Allen (1970), known today as the Moire` fringe method. They were able to determine the body contour height of single points using two small independent gratings of a light source and camera. All of these systems were only capable of measuring one side of the body at a time. It wasn’t until 1985 that Magnant produced a system which used a horizontal sheet of light to completely surround the body. Framework for the system carried the projectors and cameras needed that would scan the body from head to toe. Systems utilizing lasers were also being developed during this same period of the late 1970s and early 1980s. In 1977, Clerget, Germain, and Kryze illuminated their measured object with a scanning laser beam. Arridge, Moss, Linney, and James (1985) used 2 vertical slices of laser along with a television camera to measure the shapes of faces for orthodontic and maxillo-facial2 surgery. At this same time, Addleman and Addleman (1985) developed a scanning laser beam system which is marketed today as Cyberware. Other scanning systems have also been developed in the last fifteen years. A list of the current major scanning systems can be found in Table 1.
2
Maxillo-facial is the upper jaw area of the face (Webster’s, 1987). Karla P. Simmons 3
A-1 Paper
Table I. Current Major Scanning Systems Scanning System
System Type
Hamamatsu
Light
Loughborough
Light
ImageTwin
Light
Wicks and Wilson
Light
TELMAT
Light
Turing
Light
PulsScanning
Light
Cognitens
Light
Cyberware
Laser
TECMATH
Laser
Victronic
Laser
Hamano
Laser
Polhemus
Laser
3DScanner
Laser
Textile/Clothing Technology Corporation (TC2)/ImageTwin History. In 1981, a concept generated from the National Science Foundation was formed into Tailored Clothing Technology Corporation. Their mission was to conduct Research and Development activities, demonstrate technology and provide education programs for the apparel industry. In 1985, they became Textile/Clothing Technology Corporation [(TC2)]. (TC2) is located in Cary, North Carolina where their teaching factory is visited by thousands of industry representatives each year. One of the research and development products invented by (TC2) has been a 3-Dimensional whole body scanner and body measurement system Karla P. Simmons
4
A-1 Paper
(BMS). Work on the system began back in 1991. In 1998, the first 3D scanner model, the 3T6, was made available to the public. The first four systems to be delivered were to Levi Strauss & Company, San Francisco, the U.S. Navy, North Carolina State University College of Textiles, and Clarity Fit Technology of Minneapolis. The (TC2) scanner was the first scanner to be developed with the initial focus for the clothing industry. In order for the American apparel industry to be more competitive, (TC2) saw the need for the drive toward mass customization. 3 A move toward made-to-measure clothing necessitated fundamental technology that would make the acquisition of essential body measurements quick, private, and accurate for the customer. ImageTwin
systems. In July of 2000, (TC2) and Truefinds.com, Inc.
announced the joint venture formation of ImageTwin . The (TC2) scanner will now be known as the ImageTwin
Digital Body Measurement System ([TC2],
2000). The model 3T6 is named by the number of towers (3) and the number of sensors (6) that are used for the scanning process. New models have been designed that have the same basic function but a smaller footprint: the 2T4 and 2T4s. The 2T4 and 2T4s have 2 towers with 4 sensors. The “s” in 2T4s stands for short which denotes a smaller layout than the 2T4 (David Bruner, personal communication, 2000). A comparison of the 2T4 and 2T4s scanner models is shown in Table 2.
3
Mass Customization is a term that was coined by Stan Davis in 1987 in Future Perfect. In general , it is the delivery of custom made goods and services to a mass market. Karla P. Simmons A-1 Paper 5
Table 2. Comparison of ImageTwin Hardware
Scanner Models, 2T4 and 2T4s 2T4
2T4s
Height
7.9 ft.
7.9 ft.
Width
5 ft.
5 ft.
Length
20.5 ft.
13.5 ft.
600 lbs.
600 lbs.
Height
7.2 ft.
7.2 ft.
Width
3.9 ft.
3.9 ft.
Depth
2.6 ft.
3.6 ft.
Setup time
4 hrs.
4 hrs.
Calibration time
15 mins.
15 mins.
Portability
Yes
Yes
Cost
$65,000
$65,000
System Dimensions
Weight Field of view
System design. The ImageTwin
BMS utilizes phase measurement
profilometry (PMP) where structured white light is employed. The concept was first introduced by M. Halioua in 1986 (Halioua & Hsin-Chu, 1989). The PMP method employs white light to impel a curved, 2-dimenional patterned grating on the surface of the body. An example of this grating can be found in Figure 1. The pattern that is projected is captured by an area array charge-coupled device (CCD) camera.
Karla P. Simmons
6
A-1 Paper
Figure 1. Patterned grating in the ImageTwin
scanner.
The design of this system allows for extensive coverage of the entire human body. After experimentation, it was determined that more detail and coverage is required for the front surface of the body than on the back surface (Hurley, Demers, Wulpurn, & Grindon 1997). The 3T6 has 2 front views that have a 60 degree angle and a straight on back view (see Figure 2).
Figure 2. Booth layout of the ImageTwin
scanner.
With these angles, overlap between the views is imparted where a high degree of detail is needed for high slope regions. Minimal overlap is needed on Karla P. Simmons A-1 Paper 7
smooth surfaces. Therefore, for height coverage, six views are utilized: three upper and three lower. Each system utilizes six stationary surface sensors. A single sensor captures an area segment of the surface. When all sensors are combined, an incorporated surface with critical area coverage of the body is formed for the use in the production of apparel. Four images per sensor per grating are attained. This information is used to calculate the 3D data points. The transitional yield of the PMP method is a data cloud for all six views. Once the image is obtained, over 400,000 processed data points are determined (Figure 3). Then segmentation of the body occurs and the measurement extraction transpires (Figure 4). The specific measurement output is predetermined by the user. A printout is available with a body image and the measurements (Figure 5).
Figure 3. 3D point cloud
Karla P. Simmons
Figure 4. Segmentation of the body
8
Figure 5. Printout available to subject
A-1 Paper
Cyberware History. Another leading three-dimensional body scanner manufacturer is Cyberware. Incorporated in December 1982, the company’s early work consisted of digitizing and model shop services. More than two years was spent developing the rapid 3D digitizing that they are now known for today. Currently, Cyberware centers on manufacturing various 3D scanners with continuing research and development in custom digitizing. They are one of the leaders in research concerning 3D scanning for garment design and fitting, anthropometrics, and ergonomics. Cyberware is privately funded (Cyberware, 2000a). The idea for whole body scanning started at Cyberware when anthropologists at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base began deliberations on imaging in 1991. Two years later, a formal proposal was published with an order for a system in March of 1994. Delivery of the system was in August 1995 (Addleman, 1997). Since then, Cyberware has sold scanners all over the world (Cyberware, 2000a). Cyberware systems. Although Cyberware has several different types of scanners, they currently have only two models in the whole-body scanner line, the WB4 and WBX. The WB4 is a color whole-body 3D scanner, the goal of which is to obtain an accurate computer model in one pass of the scanner (Cyberware, 2000b). The subject stands on the scanner platform while the scanner pans down the length of the entire body (see Figure 6). The WBX is an enclosed whole body 3D scanner (Cyberware, 2000c). It was custom designed for use in scanning military recruits for uniform issue (ARN, 2000)(Figure 7.) The Karla P. Simmons A-1 Paper 9
systems do have similarities. Table 3 best illustrates the features of both the WB4 and the WBX scanners.
Figure 6. Cyberware 3D whole body scanner: Model WB4.
Figure 7. Cyberware 3D whole body scanner: Model WBX.
Karla P. Simmons
10
A-1 Paper
Table 3. Comparison of WB4 and WBX Scanners WB4
WBX
Field of view Diameter
120cm (47”)
Height
200cm (79”)
Scan heads
4
4
Cameras
4
4
Mirrors
4
0
Scan cycle time
40 secs
25 secs
Cost
$350K
$150K
Width
360cm (144”)
244cm (96”)
Height
292cm (117”)
244cm (96”)
Diameter
300cm (120”)
244cm (96”)
Weight
450Kg (992lbs)
Booth size
Sources: Cyberware, 2000b; Cyberware, 2000c; ARN, 2000.
Cyberware system design. Since the WBX is still in the prototype stage of development and is currently customized for military function, the discussion will focus on the WB4 system in this paper. The scanner consists of two towers with a round platform in between them. Each tower has a rail with a motor attached to move the two scanning heads. The four heads on the WB4 are separated by 75 and 105 degree angles. This layout of the heads gives the appropriate overlap for maximum coverage (Addleman, 1997). Previous tests concluded that the highest surface area is derived from the subject facing in the middle of the Head 2 and Head 3 position which is separated by 75 degrees (Brunsman, Daanen, and Robinette, 1997) (see Figure 8). With the subject standing on the Karla P. Simmons
11
A-1 Paper
platform, the scanning heads start at the subject’s head, and move down to scan the entire body. A typical scan is less than 30 seconds and is often completed in as little as 17 seconds (Cyberware, 2000a).
1
H ea d
2
ad He
105 75
75
H d ea 3
He ad 0
105
Source: Brunsman, Daanen, & Robinette, 1997, p.268.
Figure 8. Cyberware scanning positions. Each one of the scanning heads consists of a light source and a detector. Laser diodes4 are the source of light, which project a level surface of light onto a subject. This laser line is created by tubular lenses and focusing optics. A CCD, coupled charge device, sees the line created by the laser crossing the subject. The image is reflected using mirrors to reduce the camera size. Electronic circuitry distributes the raw data to the workstation for the scanned points (Addleman, 1997). The WB4 can produce a cloud of over 100,000 3D data points from the human body surface (Daanen, Taylor, Brunsman, & Nurre, 1997). These points
4
According to Webster’s Dictionary (1987), a diode is a 2-electrode electron tube having a negative terminal (cathode) and a positive terminal (anode) of an electrolytic cell. Karla P. Simmons A-1 Paper 12
are available within seconds for use. The four separate camera views are illustrated and combined into one data set where redundant and overlapping data are removed. For subjects larger than the maximum allowable dimensions for the scanner (79” x 49”), two or more scans can be combined for a complete 3D model (Cyberware, 2000b).
SYMCAD History. In 1992, a French based company, TELMAT Industrie, developed a computerized 3D body measuring system called SYMCAD. The System for Measuring and Creating Anthropometric Database (SYMCAD) was first used in January 1995 by the French Navy for uniform issue (Financial Times, 1998). SYMCAD systems. The range of TELMAT products fall into several categories. In the textile area, the only product they offer is the SYMCAD. They refer to this system as “The Electronic Master Tailor”, “the SYMCAD Turbo Flash/3D”, and “a Computerized 3D Body Measuring System” (TELMAT 2000; L’LALSACE, 1999; Financial Times, 1998). See Figure 9 for a representation of the SYMCAD scanner.
Figure 9. Scanning booth of the SYMCAD Turbo Flash/3D.
Karla P. Simmons
13
A-1 Paper
SYMCAD system design. The scanning system consists of a small enclosed room with an illuminated wall, a camera, and a computer. The subject enters the booth, removes their clothing, and stands in their undergarments in front of the illuminated wall. Three different poses of the subject are photographed: facing the camera with arms slightly apart from the body, from the side straight on5, and facing the wall (Financial Times, 1998). These 3D images are processed and appear on the computer screen. Over 70 measurement calculations are made from these computerized images. Traditional Anthropometry Historical Practice No two people are ever alike in all of their measurable characteristics. This uniqueness has been the object of curiosity and research for over 200 years. In the past, different individuals have set out to express quantitatively the form of the body. This technique was termed anthropometry. The definition used by Kroemer, Kroemer, & Kroemer-Elbert (1986) is:
Anthropometry describes the dimensions of the human body (p.1). The name is derived from anthropos, meaning human, and metrikos, meaning of or pertaining to measuring (Roebuck, Jr., 1995). The first individual to mark the beginning of anthropometry was Quelet in 1870, with his desire to
5
Both the front and side views adopt anthropometric poses (World Clothing Manufacturer, 1996). The anthropometric position assumes the body is standing upright, and at “attention” with the arms hanging by the sides slightly apart from the body, palms of the hands facing the front, and the feet facing directly forward (Croney, 1971). Karla P. Simmons A-1 Paper 14
obtain measurements of the average man according to Gauss’ Law6 (Anthropometry, 2000). It wasn’t until the 1950s that anthropometrics became a recognized discipline. Settings for usage of anthropometry include vehicles, work sites, equipment, airplane cockpits, and clothing (CAD Modelling, 1992; Czaja, 1984; Hertzberg, 1955; Roe, 1993; Roebuck, Kroemer, & Thomson, 1975; Sanders & Shaw, 1985). For years, anthropometry has been used in national sizing surveys as an indicator of health status (Marks, Habicht, & Mueller, 1989). Assessment of the reliability of the measures has been the topic of research for just as long (Bray, Greenway, & Molitch, 1978; Cameron, 1986; Foster, Webber, & Sathanur, 1980; Johnston, Hamill, & Lemshow, 1972; Malina, Hamill, & Lemshow, 1972; Malina, Hamill, & Lemshow, 1974; Marshall, 1937; Martroll, Habicht, & Yarbrough, 1975; Meredith, 1936).
Reliability is defined operationally as the extent to which a measure is reproducible over time (Cook & Campbell, 1979; Snedecor & Cochran, 1980). The reliability of a measurement has components of precision and dependability (Mueller & Martorell, 1988). Of the two components, precision is the most important determinate of reliability (Marks, Habicht, & Mueller, 1989; Mueller & Martrell, 1988). However, reliability matters are often overlooked in
6
Kal Friedrich Guass (1777-1855) was a German scientist and mathematician known for a relation known as Gauss's Law (Hyperphysics, 2000). Karla P. Simmons A-1 Paper 15
problem oriented research (Gordon & Bradtmiller, 1992) because of the impact of measurement error. Observer error is the most troublesome source of anthropometric error. It includes imprecision in landmark location, subject positioning, and instrument applications. This error can even be accentuated by the use of multiple observers even when they are trained by the same individual and work closely together (Bennett & Osbourne, 1986; Jamison & Zegura, 1974; Utermohle & Zegura, 1982; Utermohle, Zegura, & Heathcote, 1983;). Error limits are usually set in advance of data collection while measurer performance is monitored throughout the process against the pre-set standards (Cameron, 1984; Gordon, Bradtmiller, Churchill, Clauser, McConville, Tebbetts, & Walker, 1989; Himes, 1989; Johnston & Martorell, 1988; Malina, Hamill, & Lemshow, 1973). Observer errors in anthropometry are not random and are not unusual (Bennett & Osborne, 1986; Gordan & Bradtmiller, 1992; Jamison & Zegura, 1974). Therefore, traditional methods of measuring bodies need a great deal of improvement. Methodology & Instrumentation Methodology. Classical anthropometric data provides information on static dimensions of the human body in standard postures (Kroemer, Kroemer, & Kroemer-Elbert, 1986). The science of anthropometry is one of great precision. Experienced workers in the field are the best to utilize this technique (Montagu, 1960). Most measurements taken of the subject are taken in the most desirable position of standing. However, there are a few measures which warrant
Karla P. Simmons
16
A-1 Paper
exception. Measurements are taken, whenever possible in the morning. The human body tends to decrease in height during the day and is often more relaxed in the morning (Montagu, 1960). It is preferable to have the subject completely unclothed or with as little clothing as possible. Kromer, Kroemer, & Kroemer-Elbert (1986) explain in detail the standard method of measuring a subject: For most measurements, the subject’s body is placed in a defined upright straight posture, with the body segments at either 180, 0, or 90 degrees to each other. For example, the subject may be required to “stand erect; heels together; buttocks, shoulder blades, and back of head touching the wall; arms vertical, fingers straight…”: This is close to the so-called “anatomical position” used in anatomy. The head is positioned in the “Frankfurt Plane”; With the pupils on the same horizontal level, the right tragion (approximated by the ear hole), and the lowest point of the right orbit (eye socket) are also placed on the same horizontal plane. When measures are taken on a seated subject, the (flat and horizontal) surfaces of seat and foot support are so arranged that the thighs are horizontal, the lower legs vertical and the feet flat on their horizontal support. The subject is nude, or nearly so, and unshod (p.6). A diagram of the principle planes used in anthropometry and the terms of orientation are given in Figure 11. Instrumentation. The same anthropometric instruments have been used since Richer first used calipers in 1890 (Anthropometry, 2000). Simple, quick, non-invasive tools include a weight scale, camera, measuring tape, anthropometer, spreading caliper, sliding compass, and head spanner. Table 4 summarizes the tools and their uses. Figure 10 shows the tools.
Karla P. Simmons
17
A-1 Paper
Table 4. Summary of Anthropometric Tools and Usages Anthropometric Tool
Usage
Weight Scale
For determining weight
Camera
For photographing subjects
Measuring Tape
For measuring circumferences and curvatures For measuring height and various traverse diameters of the body For measuring diameters
Anthropometer Spreading Caliper Sliding Compass Head Spanner
For measuring short diameters such as those of the nose, ears, hand, etc. For determining the height of the head
b
d
c a
Figure 10. Standard anthropometric tools: (a) anthropometer, (b) calipers, (c) sliding compass, (d) tape measure.
Karla P. Simmons
18
A-1 Paper
Medial (Middle of the body)
Lateral (Away from the body)
Lateral (Away from the body)
YZ Posterior (Back of the body)
XZ
Proximal (nearer to the torso skeleton)
YZ
Superior (Toward the head)
Anterior (Front of the body) XY
Transverse plane
Distal
Distal (further from the torso skeleton)
XY
Sagittal plane
Coronal plane Inferior (Away from the head)
Figure 11. Diagram of principle planes used in anthropometry and the terms of orientation.7 7
Medial suggests near the midline. Lateral suggests farther away from the midline. Posterior suggests at the back of the body. Anterior suggests at the front of the body. Superior suggests toward the head. Inferior suggests away from the head. The Median plane passes through the center of the body dividing it into a right and left half. The Sagittal plane passes through the body parallel with the median plane. The Coronal plane passes through the body from side to side at right angles to the sagittal plane. The Traverse plane is any plane at right angles to the long axis of the body (Bryan, Davies, & Middlemiss, 1996; Tortora, 1986). Karla P. Simmons A-1 Paper 19
Landmarks As stated earlier, the correct identification of body landmarks is one of the key elements in observer error in the collection of anthropometric data. In order to have agreement as to the body measurements recorded in an anthropometric based study, uniformity must be achieved as to what common points on the body must be identified. These points are referred to as landmarks.
A landmark is an anatomical structure used as a point of orientation in locating other structures (Websters, 1987).
Most people have never had a formal education in anatomy to be able to identify specific landmarks. Even though measurers are usually trained in how to measure subjects for a study, the process is still very difficult and time consuming. In a 1988 anthropometric survey of US Army personnel, four hours were required to physically landmark, measure, and record the data of one subject (Paquette, 1996). The first step in traditional landmarking is to mark certain places on the body with a non-smearing, skin pencil (O’Brien & Sheldon, 1941) or skin-safe, washable ink (Roebuck, 1995). A small cross verses a dot is usually used as the marking symbol because the intersection of the lines is easier to read. The traditional methods in determining and placing landmarks are given below. Diagrams of the landmarks are given in Figures 12, 13, and 14.
Karla P. Simmons
20
A-1 Paper
Table 5. Landmark Terms and Definitions Landmark Abdominal Extension (Front High-Hip)
Symbol A
Figure 14
Acromion (Shoulder Point)
B
Figure 12
Ankle (Malleolus)
C
Figures 12, 13, 14
Armpit (Axilla)
D
Figures 12, 13
Bicep Point
E
Figure 12
Bust Point
F Figure 14
Buttock (Seat) Calf (Gastrocnemius) Cervicale (Vertebra Prominous)
G Figure 14
H Figures 12, 13, 14
I
Figures 13, 14
Karla P. Simmons
Definition Viewed from the side, it is the measure of the greatest protrusion from one imaginary side seam to the other imaginary side seam usually taken at the high hip level (ASTM, 1999); taken approximately 3 inches below the waist, parallel to the floor (ASTM, 1995) The most prominent point on the upper edge of the acromial process of the shoulder blade (scapula)[T] as determined by palpatation (feeling) (Jones, 1929; McConville, 1979). The joint between the foot and lower leg; the projection of the end of the major bones of the lower leg, fibula and tibia, that is prominent, taken at the minimum circumference (McConville, 1979; O’Brien & Sheldon, 1941; ASTM, 1999). Points at the lower (inferior) edge determined by placing a straight edge horizontally and as high as possible into the armpit without compressing the skin and marking the front and rear points or the hollow part under the arm at the shoulder (McConville, 1979; ASTM, 1999). *See Scye. Point of maximum protrusion of the bicep muscle, the brachii, as viewed when elbow is flexed 90 degrees, fist clenched and bicep strongly contracted (Gordon, Churchhill, Clauser, Bradtmiller, McConville, Tebbetts, & Walker, 1989; ASTM, 1999). Most prominent protrusion of the bra cup (Gordon, et.al, 1989, McConville, 1979; O’Brien & Sheldon, 1941); apex of the breast (ASTM, 1999). Level of maximum protrusion as determined by visual inspection (McConville, 1979; Gordon, et.al, 1989) Part of the leg between the knee and ankle at maximum circumference (McConville, 1979; ASTM, 1999). At the base of the neck [R] portion of the spine and located at the tip of the spinous process of the 7th cervical vertebra determined by palpatation, often found by bending the neck or head forward (McConville, 1979; Jones, 1929; Gordon, et.al, 1989; O’Brien & Sheldon, 1941; ASTM, 1999).
21
A-1 Paper
Landmark Collarbone Point (Clavical Point) Crotch Point
Symbol J Figure 12
K Figures 12, 13
Crown
L Figure 12
Elbow (Olecranon)
M
Figures 12, 13, 14
Gluteal Furrow Point Hip Bone (Greater Trochanter) Iliocristale
N Figures 13, 14
O Figures 12, 14
P Figures 12, 14
Kneecap
Q Figures 12, 14
Neck
R Figures 12, 13
Infrathyroid (Adam’s Apple)
S Figure 14
Shoulder Blade (Scapula)
T Figures 13, 14
Scye
Karla P. Simmons
U
Definition Upper (superior) points of the shoulder (lateral) ends of the clavical (Gordon, et.al, 1989). Body area adjunct to the highest point (vertex) of the included angle between the legs (ASTM, 1999). Top of the head (ASTM, 1999; O’Brien & Sheldon, 1941). When arm is bent, the farthermost (lateral) point of the olecranon which is the projection of the end of the inner most bone in the lower arm (ulna) (O’Brien & Sheldon, 1941); the joint between the upper and lower arm (ASTM, 1999). The crease formed at the juncture of the thigh and buttock (McConville, 1979; Gordon, et. Al, 1989). Outer bony prominence of the upper end of the thigh bone (femer) (ASTM, 1999; O’Brien & Sheldon, 1941). Highest palpable point of the iliac crest of the pelvis, ½ the distance between the front (anterior) and back (posterior) upper (superior) iliac spine (Gordon, et.al, 1989; Jones, 1929). Upper and lower borders of the kneecap (patella) located by palpatation (Gordon, et.al, 1989; McConville, 1979); joint between the upper and lower leg (ASTM, 1999). Front (anterior) and side (lateral) points at the base of the neck; points on each cervical and upper borders of neck ends of right and left clavicles [J] (O’Brien & Sheldon, 1941; Gordon, et.al, 1989). The bottom (inferior), most prominent point in the middle of the thyroid cartilage found in the center front of the neck (Gordon, et.al, 1989). Large, triangular, flat bones situated in the back part of the chest (thorax) between the 2nd and 7th ribs (Totora, 1986; Bryan, Davies, & Middlemiss, 1996). Points at the folds of the juncture of the upperarm and torso associated with a set-in sleeve of a garment (Gordon, et.al, 1989; McConville, 1979; O’Brien & Sheldon,1941). *See Armpit.
22
A-1 Paper
Landmark Top of the Breastbone (Suprasternal) Tenth Rib
Symbol V Figure 12
W Figures 12, 14
7th Thoracic Vertebra
X Figure 13
Waist (Natural indentation)
Y
Figure 13
Waist (Omphalion) Wrist (Carpus)
Z Figure 14
AA Figures 12, 13
Karla P. Simmons
Definition Bottom most (inferior) point of the jugular notch of the breastbone (sternum) (Gordon, et. al, 1989; Jones, 1929). Lower edge point of the lowest rib at the bottom of the rib cage (Gordon, et. al, 1989; O’Brien & Sheldon, 1941). The 7th vertebra of 12 of the thoracic type which covers from the neck to the lower back (Totora, 1986). Taken at the lower edge of the 10th rib [W] by palpatation (O’Brien & Sheldon, 1941); point of greatest indentation on the profile of the torso or ½ the distance between the 10th rib [W] and iliocristale [P] landmarks (Gordon, et.al, 1989); location between the lowest rib [W] and hip [O] identified by bending the body to the side (ASTM, 1999). Center of navel (umbilicus) (Gordon, et. al, 1989; Jones, 1929). Joint between the lower arm and hand (ASTM, 1999); Distal ends (toward the fingers) of the ulna (the inner most bone) and radius (the outer most bone) of the lower arm (McConville, 1979; Gordon, et. al, 1989).
23
A-1 Paper
[L] Crown Neck [R] Collarbone Point [J] (Clavical Point) Shoulder Point (Acromion) [B] [V]
Top of Breastbone (Suprasternal) Bicep Point [E]
Armpit [D] (Axilla)
Iliocristale [P]
Elbow [M] (Olecranon)
Hip Bone (Greater [O] Trochanter)
Tenth [W] Rib Wrist (Carpus) [AA]
Crotch [K] Point
Calf (Gastrocnemius) [H]
Kneecap [Q] (Patella) Ankle (Malleolus) [C]
Figure 12. Anatomical points used in locating body landmarks on the front of the body. Karla P. Simmons
24
A-1 Paper
[R] Neck Cervicale (7th Cervical [I] Vertebra) 7th Thoracic [X] Vertebra
Shoulder Blades (Scapula) [T]
Waist [Y] (Natural Indentation)
Wrist [AA] (Carpus)
Crotch [K] Point
Armpit (Axilla) [D]
Elbow (Olecranon) [M]
Gluteal Furrow Point
[N]
Calf (Gastrocnemius) [H] Ankle [C] (Malleolus)
Figure 13. Anatomical points used in locating body landmarks on the back of the body. Karla P. Simmons A-1 Paper 25
Cervical (7th Cerival Vertebra) [I]
Adam’s Apple (Infrathyroid) [S] Bust Point [F]
[T]
Shoulder Blade (Scapula) Elbow (Olecranon) [M] [W] Tenth Rib Waist (Omphalion) [Z] [G] Buttock Iliocristale [P]
Gluteal Furrow [N] Point
Calf [H] (Gatrocnemius)
Ankle [C] (Malleolus)
Abdominal Extension [A]
Hip Bone (Greater [O] Trochanter)
Kneecap (Patella) [Q]
Figure 14. Anatomical points used in locating body landmarks on the side of the body. Karla P. Simmons A-1 Paper 26
Comparison of the Traditional Anthropometrical Method With 3D Body Scanning Methods Simple anthropometric methods using measuring tapes and calipers are still being utilized to measure the human body. The methods are time consuming and often not accurate. With the development of three-dimensional body scanning, this technology allows for the extraction of body measurements in seconds. It also allows consistent measurements. However, there are several problems that exist with the adoption of this technology. One such issue is the comparability of measuring techniques between the scanners. Among the growing number of scanners that are currently available, significant variance exists in how each scanner captures specific body measurements. Until the data capture process of these measurements can be standardized or, at the very least, communicated among the scanning systems, this technology cannot be utilized for its maximum benefit within the apparel industry. A second problem is the unwillingness of some scanner companies to share information about their scanning process. Some companies will give how the data capture occurs, how and what landmarks are used, and general information about their measurement extraction. However, the real proprietary information is in the mathematic/algebraic algorithms that are used. Almost all scanning companies are keeping this secret, which is understandable since this might be their competitive advantage. When these particular scanning companies are questioned about their data capturing methods, they simply give a standard answer of “we follow the ISO standards” or a similar statement. These Karla P. Simmons
27
A-1 Paper
are the kinds of attitudes that cause barriers to be built, which could inhibit the growth of this technology. Research of this comparative nature should enable 3D scanner companies to see the importance of their support in order to promote adoption of their technologies. A third problem with body scanning technology is that there are no standards, published or unpublished, on the interpretation of measurements or measurement terms. Current standards for body and garment dimensions include those established by the Association of Standards and Testing Materials (ASTM) and the International Standards Organization (ISO). The predominant standard for measurements taken for the military today in their issue of clothing is the 1988 study of U.S. Army personnel by Gordon, Bradtmiller, Churchhill, Clouser, McConville, Tebbetts, and Walker (1989). Three-dimensional body scanning brings to the forefront issues concerning these current standards. Most current standards require palpatation, or touching of the human body, or the bending of body parts to find appropriate landmarks for the needed measurements. Most scanners are intended to be non-contact so that the privacy of the individual being scanned can be protected. If we were to use the current standards to define the measuring process in 3D scanning, they just will not work. New standards are needed that will work for 3D scanners on a global basis. A fourth problem is the need of some scanners to require landmarking. Manually identifying landmarks is time consuming and, usually, full of error. Landmarking also violates the privacy of the individual. A human must come in contact with the subject’s skin in order to find the landmark and to mark it. On A-1 Paper 28
Karla P. Simmons
the other side, another issue is that scanners that do landmarking automatically are most times making an educated guess as to the exact location of that landmark. Without being able to touch the subject’s skin, absolute identification cannot be achieved. In this study, 17 measurements were chosen that were considered critical in the initial design of well fitting garments. These measures included midneck/neckbase, chest/bust, waist by natural indentation/waist by navel, hips/seat, sleeve length/arm length, inseam, outseam, shoulder length, across back, across chest, back of neck to waist, rise, crotch length, thigh circumference, bicep circumference, and wrist circumference. For each of the 17 measurements, the method of data capture is described below for three different scanners: ImageTwin , Cyberware, and SYMCAD. Neck-Midneck Traditional measurement method. The midneck is defined as the circumference of the neck approximately 25mm (1 inch) above the neck base (ASTMa,1995; ASTMb, 1995; ASTM, 1999). The girth of the neck measured 2cm below the Adam’s apple and at the level of the 7th cervical vertebra (ISO, 1981; ISO, 1989; National Bureau of Standards (NBS), 1971). The plane is perpendicular to the long axis of the body (McConville, 1979; Gordon, et al, 1979). ImageTwin
method. In this system, the mid-neck measure is referred to
as the “collar”. It is measured by
Karla P. Simmons
29
A-1 Paper
Cyberware method. The “neck circumference” measure is taken at the collar level. It is the smallest circumference of points that pass through the center of the Adam’s Apple. It often lies on or near a plane at varying offsets and tilt angles (Steven Paquette, personal communication, December 1, 2000).
Figure 15. Midneck measurement.
SYMCAD method. The “neck girth” is the perimeter of the neck that is the smallest circumference measured from the 7th cervical vertebra (SYMCAD, 2000). Discussion. For the midneck measure, the first issue of discussion is that the current standards are not in agreement as to the proper method of measurement. About 25 mm above the neckbase and 2 cm below the Adam’s apple can vary widely between individuals. Secondly, men have an Adam’s apple but women do not. The ISO and NBS definitions seem not to be appropriate for women. Thirdly, the terms used for the midneck are not clear. The midneck measure is used as the collar measurement in men’s shirts. ImageTwin recognizes this usage by calling their measure “collar”. However, Cyberware and SYMCAD refer to their midneck as neck circumference and neck girth.
Karla P. Simmons
30
A-1 Paper
Neck-Neckbase Traditional measurement method. The neckbase is defined as the circumference of the neck taken just over the cervical at the back and at the top of the collarbone in the front (ISO, 1989; ASTMa, 1995; ASTM, 1999; NBS, 1971; NBS, 1972). ImageTwin
method. The neckbase is the “neck”
measurement in this system. It is the circumference measured right at the base of the neck following the contours. It is not parallel to the floor (Ken Harrison, personal communication, September, 1999). Cyberware method. Cyberware does not have a Figure 16. Neckbase measurement.
neckbase measure. SYMCAD method.
The “neckbase” is the perimeter
around the neck defined by a plane section based on the 7th cervical vertebra and both left and right neck bases (SYMCAD, 2000). Discussion. The neckbase measurement for the ImageTwin and SYMCAD seem to be consistent with the current standards. The term “neck” could be changed so it would not be confused with the midneck measure. This measure is possibly more important for women than men because of the various collarless clothing styles. Considering the development of the Cyberware system and its use by the military, it is understandable that they have not developed a neckbase measure.
Karla P. Simmons
31
A-1 Paper
Table 6. Midneck and Neckbase Terms Used in Selected Scanner Models
Midneck
Neckbase
ImageTwin
Collar
Neck
Cyberware
Neck Circumference
n/a
SYMCAD
Neck Girth
Neckbase
Chest Circumference Traditional measurement method. The chest circumference is defined as the maximum horizontal girth at bust levels measured under the armpits, over the shoulder blades, and across the nipples with the subject breathing normally (NSB, 1971; ISO, 1989; ISO, 1981); parallel to the floor (ASTMa, 1995; ASTMb, 1995; ASTM, 1999; McConville, 1979). ImageTwin
method. The “chest” measurement is measured horizontally
at the armpit level just above the bustline (Ken Harrison, personal communication, September, 1999; [TC2], 1999). Cyberware method. Cyberware does not have a measurement that differentiates the chest from the bust measures. Their chest measure is more related to the bust measure and is discussed in the next section. SYMCAD method. The “maximum chest girth” is the maximum horizontal perimeter of the chest Figure 17. Chest circumference measurement.
(SYMCAD, 2000).
Karla P. Simmons
32
A-1 Paper
Discussion. Current standards do not differentiate between the chest and bust measurements. However, there is a distinct difference. The only system to clearly recognize this difference is the ImageTwin. The SYMCAD measurement discusses the maximum circumference which on a man might be the chest measure. For a woman, the bust will almost always be the maximum circumference. The above-bust (or chest) circumference is vitally important for the best fit in women’s clothing. Because men’s clothing is seldom created with a close, form fit, the measure and its determination may be less important. Bust Circumference Traditional measurement method. The bust circumference is defined as the maximum horizontal girth at bust level measured under the armpits, over the shoulder blades, and across the nipples with the subject breathing normally (NSB, 1971; ISO, 1989; ISO, 1981); parallel to the floor (ASTMa, 1995; ASTMb, 1995; ASTM, 1999; McConville, 1979). ImageTwin
method. The “bust” measurement is the horizontal
circumference taken across the bust points at the fullest part of the chest ([TC2], 1999). Cyberware method. The “chest circumference” measurement is the sum of the distances separating successive points from the torso segment that lies on or near a parallel place to the X axis which passes through the right and left bustpoints (Steven Paquette, personal communication, December 1, Karla P. Simmons
33
Figure 18. Bust circumference measurement. A-1 Paper
2000). SYMCAD method. The “chest girth” is the horizontal perimeter measured at the average height of the most prominent points of each breast with the subject standing with arms apart and breathing normally (SYMCAD, 2000). Discussion. All three scanners have definitions that include going through the bust points for the bust circumference. The standards discuss going across the nipples but, if you notice, this definition is the same as the one for chest circumference. The definition for the chest measurement should be changed in the standards to reflect the true definition of being measured horizontally at the armpit level just above the bustline. The terminology in the three scanners for the bust circumference name should be changed to reflect a very different bust measure. Since the term “bust” may be an issue in men’s measurement and not really needed, another general term may be needed or the measurement sets may be defined by gender.
Table 7. Chest and Bust Terms Used in Selected Scanner Models Chest
Bust
ImageTwin
Chest
Bust
Cyberware
n/a
Chest Circumference
SYMCAD
Maximum Chest Girth
Chest Girth
Waist-Natural Indentation Traditional measurement method. The natural waist measure is defined as the horizontal circumference at the level of the waist, immediately below the lowest rib (Gordon, et al, 1989; ASTM, 1999; ASTMa, 1995; NSB, 1971; NSB, Karla P. Simmons
34
A-1 Paper
1972); between the iliac crest and lower ribs (ISO, 1989; ISO, 1981); may not be parallel to the floor (ASTMb, 1995). ImageTwin
method. The “waist” is the smallest circumference between
the bust and hips determined by locating the small of the back and then going up and down a predetermined amount for a starting point to find the waist. The system allows the user to define how far from horizontal the waist can rotate or determine a fixed angle for the waist. Zeros for the center front and center back values will make the waist parallel to the floor. The waist can be adjusted based on the hips. The distance you start above the waist is based upon where the hips are located. The system uses a formula that defines a distance above the crotch to start the waist based on the circumference of the hips. Someone who has rather large, wide hips might allow the waist to go up higher (Ken Harrison, personal communication, September 1999; [TC2], 1999). Cyberware Method. This system does not use the natural indentation of the body as the waist measure. They use the navel as the waist landmark which is explained in the next section. SYMCAD method. The “natural waist girth” is the horizontal perimeter measured at the narrowest part of the abdomen (SYMCAD, 2000). Discussion. Both ImageTwin and SYMCAD have definitions that coincide with the current standards. However, palpatation or bending to one side is needed to determine the landmarks used in the natural waist. In a scanner, the subject stands vertically and does not move. Therefore, the standards need to reflect this issue in their definition. Karla P. Simmons
35
A-1 Paper
Waist-Navel (Omphalion) Traditional measurement method. No current standard could be found that had a waist-at-the-navel definition. ImageTwin
method. This system does not have a method of detecting
the navel for use in the waist measurement. Cyberware method. The “waist circumference” is taken in reference to the navel. It is the measurement of the total distance around the torso segment that lies on or near a plane parallel to the XY plane which passes through the navel (omphalion). The center of the navel is taken to be the center of mass of the 3D object occurring at or near the inside middle of the central third of the torso segment (Steven Paquette, personal communication, December 1, 2000). SYMCAD method. The “waist girth (at the navel)” is the horizontal perimeter measured where the
Figure 19. Waist at the navel measurement.
system detects the navel. The “belt girth” is where the trousers are worn according to the rise as defined by the user (SYMCAD, 2000). Discussion. Using the navel as a landmark has a significant problem of not being able to be located. The subject in the scanner will usually have on clothing that could cover up the navel. This would affect other measurements that rely on an accurate waist measure for their extraction. The terminology for the waist-at-the-navel terms for Cyberware and SYMCAD should be changed to indicate the usage of the navel as a landmark. Karla P. Simmons
36
A-1 Paper
Table 8. Waist-Natural Indentation and Waist-Navel(Omphalion)Terms Used in Selected Scanner Models Waist-Natural
Waist-Navel
Indentation
(Omphalion)
ImageTwin
Waist
n/a
Cyberware
n/a
Waist Circumference
SYMCAD
Natural Waist Girth
Waist Girth Belt girth
Hip Circumference Traditional measurement method. The hip circumference is defined as the maximum hip circumference of the body at the hip level, parallel to the floor (ASTMa, 1995); maximum circumference of the body at the level of maximum prominence of the buttocks (ASTM, 1999); maximum hip circumference at the level of maximum prominence of the buttocks, parallel to the floor (ASTMb, 1995); the horizontal girth measured round the buttocks at the level of the greatest lateral trochanteric projectors (ISO, 1989); the horizontal girth measured round the buttocks at the level of maximum circumference (ISO, 1981). ImageTwin
method. The “hips” measure is defined as the largest
circumference defined between the waist and the crotch. Upper and lower limits can be specified by the user. These limits are based on a percentage of the distance from the crotch and the waist and a distance above or below that point (Ken Harrison, personal communication, September, 1999; [TC2], 1999). Cyberware method. Cyberware does not have a hips measurement. SYMCAD method. SYMCAD does not have a hips measurement. Karla P. Simmons
37
A-1 Paper
Seat Traditional measurement method. The seat measure is defined as the horizontal circumference of the level of the maximum protrusion of the right buttock, as viewed from the side (Gordon, et al, 1989). ImageTwin
Method. The “seat” measure is the circumference taken at
the largest (widest) part of the bottom, as viewed from the side. The seat measure will never be larger than the hips measure unless limits are placed on the area the scanner searches in (Ken Harrison, personal communication, September, 1999; [TC2], 1999). Cyberware Method. The “seat circumference” finds the seat at the most prominent posterior protuberance on the buttocks. Starting at the crotch, cross sections of the pelvis are taken until the waist is reached. At each level, the greatest posterior point is found. At the level of the most posterior point, the circumference is measured around the point cloud (Beecher, 1999). SYMCAD method. The “seat girth” is the horizontal perimeter measured at the average height of the most prominent point of the buttocks (SYMCAD, 2000). Discussion. The traditional definitions of this measure allow for a great deal of measurement variance since no consistent landmark is defined. The ImageTwin
Figure 20. Seat measurement.
most correctly follows the ASTMa, 1995
and ISO, 1981 standards but does not support the other definitions. The other definitions (ASTMb, 1995; ASTM, 1999; ISO, 1989) most clearly follow the Karla P. Simmons
38
A-1 Paper
definition of seat as stated above. A strong case can be made for the importance of both hip and seat measures as well as the location of those measures form a basic landmark (floor or waist).
Table 9. Hip Circumference and Seat Terms Used in Selected Scanner Models Hip Circumference
Seat
ImageTwin
Hips
Seat
Cyberware
n/a
Seat Circumference
SYMCAD
n/a
Seat Girth
Sleeve Length Traditional measurement method. The sleeve length is defined as the horizontal surface distance from the mid-spine landmark, across the olecranoncenter landmark at the tip of the raised right elbow, to the dorsal wrist landmark (Gordon, et al, 1989); the distance between the 7th cervical vertebra to the extremity of the wrist bone, passing over the top of the shoulder (acromion) and along the arm bent at 90 degrees in a horizontal position (ISO, 1989; ASTMa, 1995). ImageTwin
method. The “shirt sleeve length” is
measured from the back of the neck, over the shoulder, and down to 2 inches above the knuckle ([TC2], 1999). Cyberware method. The “sleeve length” measure starts by measuring one-half the cross-shoulder measurement. A line is then drawn from the shoulder Karla P. Simmons
39
Figure 21. Sleeve length measurement. A-1 Paper
endpoint (acromion) to the wrist. One inch is added to the length to give the approximate sleeve end point (ARN, 1999). SYMCAD method. The “total arm length” is the distance between the base of the neck and the exterior inferior edge of the wrist, measured along the arm through the tops of both the acromion and the elbow, arm and forearm in a vertical plane forming an angle of about 120 degrees. The subject must stand with their fists about 15cm out from the hips (SYMCAD, 2000). Discussion. This measure, as defined here, is primarily used in men’s tailored clothing. The ISO, ASTM, and U.S. Army study standards for sleeve length require the arm to be bent at 90 degrees for this measure. In many scanners, the subject’s arms are hanging straight down and are not bent. None of these standards will work for body scanning as they currently exist. SYMCAD needs to have a term that reflects its relationship with the sleeve. Arm Length Traditional measurement method. The arm length is defined as the distance from the armscye/shoulder line intersection (acromion), over the elbow, to the far end of the prominent wrist bone (ulna), with fists clenched and placed on the hip and with the arms bent at 90 degrees (ISO, 1989; ASTMa, 1995; ASTMb, 1995; ASTM, 1999). ImageTwin
method. This system does not have an arm length measure.
Cyberware method. This system does not have an arm length measure. SYMCAD method. The “arm length” measure is the distance between the edge of the shoulder and the exterior inferior edge of the wrist, measured along Karla P. Simmons
40
A-1 Paper
the arm through the top of the elbow, arm, and forearm in a vertical plane forming an angle of about 120 degrees, standing with fists about 15cm apart from the hips(SYMCAD, 2000). Discussion. SYMCAD is the only scanner with this arm length measure at this time. It is labeled appropriately. The current standards require the arms to be bent at 90 degrees. The ImageTwin and Cyberware require subjects to hang their arms naturally be their side, slightly
Figure 22. Arm length measurement.
away from the body. The SYMCAD requires an awkward stance of the elbows bent up and out from the body. However, it does not give the 90 degrees stipulated by the standards and is questionable as to whether this would effect the measure.
Table 10. Sleeve Length and Arm Length Terms Used in Selected Scanner Models Sleeve Length
Arm Length
ImageTwin
Shirt Sleeve Length
n/a
Cyberware
Sleeve Length
n/a
SYMCAD
Total Arm Length
Arm Length
Inseam Traditional measurement method. The inseam measure is defined as the distance from the crotch intersection straight down to the soles of the feet (ASTMa, 1995; ASTMb, 1995; ASTM, 1999; ISO, 1981; ISO, 1989)
Karla P. Simmons
41
A-1 Paper
ImageTwin
method. The “inseam” measure
allows for user defined parameters on where the inseam should be measured. Both methods start at the crotch point. One variation of the measure can be made straight down to the floor. The other variation can take the measure along the inside of the leg, ending at the inside of the foot. The default for the system gives the height of the crotch straight up from the floor ([TC2], 1999). Cyberware method. The “pant inseam” is the
Figure 23. Inseam measurement.
measure of the crotch height which is the straight height above the floor of the lowest crotch point. The legs are separated from the torso at the crotch, therefore the measurement value is the height of segmentation between the legs and torso (Steven Paquette, personal communication, December 1, 2000). SYMCAD method. The “inside leg length” is the distance measured on a straight line along the leg between the crotch and the ground while subject stands with legs apart (SYMCAD, 2000). Discussion. SYMCAD is the only system that deviates from the current definitions in that it is measured along the leg and not straight down to the floor. Its terminology could be changed to be inline with the others.
Karla P. Simmons
42
A-1 Paper
Table 11. Inseam Terms Used in Selected Scanner Models Inseam ImageTwin
Inseam
Cyberware
Pant Inseam
SYMCAD
Inside Leg Length
Outseam Traditional measurement method. The distance from the side waist to the soles of the feet, following the curves of the body (ASTM, 1999; ISO, 1981); following the contour of the hip then vertically down (ISO, 1989); The vertical distance between a standing surface and the landmark at the preferred landmark of the right waist (Gordon, et al, 1989). ImageTwin
method. The “outseam” measure starts at the side waist
point and follows the body down to the hips. From there, user defined parameters allow three variations: (1) from the hip point, the measure goes straight down to the floor and disregards whether the legs are in the way or not, (2) from the hip point, the measure goes down to the outside of the foot, and (3) from the hip point, the measure goes straight to the floor as soon as there is no leg getting in the way ([TC2], 1999). Cyberware method. This system does not have an outseam measure. SYMCAD method. The “outside leg length” is Karla P. Simmons
43
Figure 24. Outseam measurement. A-1 Paper
the distance comprised between the natural waist line and the ground, measured on the flank side along the hip and then vertically from the fleshy part of the thigh (SYMCAD, 2000). Discussion. Both ImageTwin and SYMCAD follow the same basic definition. However, the standards should be clearer on the outseam measure. Gordon’s traditional definition is really a vertical waist height measure. While an important measure, it doesn’t have a direct application or the best fit of pants or skirts.
Table 12. Outseam Terms Used in Selected Scanner Models Outseam ImageTwin
Outseam
Cyberware
n/a
SYMCAD
Outside Leg Length
Shoulder Length Traditional measurement method. The shoulder length measure is taken with the arms hanging down naturally. It is the measure from the side of the neck base to the armscye line at the shoulder joint (ASTMa, 1995; ASTMb, 1995; ASTM, 1999); from the base of the side of the neck (neck point) to the acromion extremity (ISO, 1989). ImageTwin
method. The “shoulder length” is the distance from the side
of the neck to the shoulder point (acromion)([TC2], 1999).
Karla P. Simmons
44
A-1 Paper
Cyberware Method. This system does not have a shoulder length measure. SYMCAD method. With the arms apart, the “shoulder length” is the distance between the base of the neck and the edge of the shoulder (SYMCAD, 2000). Discussion. Both the ImageTwin and SYMCAD have terms and definitions that are consistent with the current standards. However, there is still an issue of the scanners being able to correctly
Figure 25. Shoulder length measurement.
identify the landmarks of the neck and acromion consistently.
Table 13. Shoulder Length Terms Used in Selected Scanner Models Shoulder Length ImageTwin
Shoulder Length
Cyberware
n/a
SYMCAD
Shoulder Length
Across Chest Traditional measurement method. Measure across the chest from armscye to armscye at front breakpoint8 level (ASTMa, 1995; ASTMb, 1995); from front-break point to front-break point (ASTM, 1999).
8
Front breakpoint is the location on the front of the body where the arm separates from the body (ASTM, 1999). Karla P. Simmons A-1 Paper 45
ImageTwin
method. The “across chest”
measure is taken from the front of the arm at the armpit level to the front of the other arm at the armpit level ([TC2], 1999). Cyberware method. This system does not have an across chest measure. SYMCAD method. The “across chest”
Figure 26. Across chest measurement.
measure is the distance between the points situated at the middle of the segment between the edge of the shoulder and the armpit in the front with subject standing with arms apart (SYMCAD, 2000). Discussion. The definition for the across chest measure for SYMCAD seems unclear. Greater detail or different wording should be used.
Table 14. Across Chest Terms Used in Selected Scanner Models Across Chest ImageTwin
Across Chest
Cyberware
n/a
SYMCAD
Across Chest
Across Back Traditional measurement method. Measure across the back from armscye to armscye back-break point9 level (ASTMa, 1995; ASTM, 1999); approximately the same level as the chest (ASTMb, 1995); the horizontal 9
Back breakpoint is the location on the back of the body where the arm separates from the body (ASTM, 1999). Karla P. Simmons A-1 Paper 46
distance across the back measured half-way between the upper and lower scye levels (ISO, 1989). ImageTwin
method. The “across back” measure is taken from the back
of one arm to the back of the other at the armpit level, where the arm joins the back at the crease ([TC2], 1999). Cyberware method. This system does not have an across back measure. SYMCAD method. The “across back” measure is the distance between the points situated at the middle of the segment between the edge of the shoulder and the armpit in the back with the subject standing with arms apart (SYMCAD, 2000).
Figure 27. Across back measurement.
Discussion. Te definition for the across back measure for SYMCAD seems unclear. Greater detail or different wording should be used. Standards should be more consistent.
Table 15. Across Back Terms Used in Selected Scanner Models Across Back
Karla P. Simmons
ImageTwin
Across Back
Cyberware
n/a
SYMCAD
Across Back
47
A-1 Paper
Back of Neck to Waist Length Traditional measurement method. The back of neck to waist measure is defined as the distance from the 7th cervical vertebra (cervicale), following the contour of the spinal column, to the waist (ISO, 1989; ASTMa, 1995; ASTMb, 1995; ASTM, 1999; Gordon, et al, 1989). ImageTwin
method. The “neck to waist” measure
can be measured in the front or the back. For the back measure, it is taken at the neck base, following the contours of the spine down to the waist at the location previously defined in the system ([TC2], 1999). Cyberware method. This system does not have a back of neck to waist measure.
Figure 28. Back of neck to waist measurement.
SYMCAD method. The “back neck to waist” is the distance between the 7th cervical vertebra and the waist (at the navel) along the body between the shoulder blades up to the widest point then vertically. The “back neck to belt” is the distance between the 7th cervical vertebra and the belt (the waist measure at the preferred height) along the body between the shoulder blades up to the widest point then vertically (SYMCAD, 2000). Discussion. This is a critical measure for appropriate fit of most upper body garments. A significant issue for this measure is the location of the waist. When the waist measure is standardized, it will affect this measure also.
Karla P. Simmons
48
A-1 Paper
Table 16. Back of Neck to Waist Length Terms Used in Selected Scanner Models Back of Neck to Waist ImageTwin
Neck to Waist
Cyberware
n/a
SYMCAD
Back Neck to Waist Back Neck to Belt
Rise Traditional measurement method. The rise measure is defined as the vertical distance between the waist level and the crotch level taken standing from the side (ISO, 1989; ASTM, 1999); while sitting on a hard, flat surface, measure straight down from the waist level at the side of the body to the flat surface (ASTMa, 1995). ImageTwin
method. The “vertical rise” is the
vertical distance from the crotch to the waist, not being measured along the body. Instead, it is the difference in height of the waist and the crotch ([TC2], 1999). Cyberware method. This system does not have a rise measure. SYMCAD method. The “body rise” is the difference
Figure 29. Rise measurement.
between the height of the belt girth (where the trousers are worn) and the inside leg length (SYMCAD, 2000). Discussion. Again, the issue for this measure is the location of the waist. When the waist measure is standardized, it will affect this measure also. Karla P. Simmons
49
A-1 Paper
Table 17. Rise Terms Used in Selected Scanner Models Rise ImageTwin
Vertical Rise
Cyberware
n/a
SYMCAD
Body Rise
Crotch Length Traditional measurement method. The crotch length is defined as the measure from the center front waist level through the crotch to the center back waist level (ASTMb, 1995); the distance between the abdomen at the level of the preferred landmark of the waist to the preferred landmark on the back is measured through the crotch to the right of the genitalia (Gordon, et al, 1989). ImageTwin
method. The “crotch length” is the
measurement along the body from the front waist through the crotch to the back waist. This system allows the user to define whether a front, back, or full crotch length is needed ([TC2], 1999). Cyberware method. This system does not have a
Figure 30. Crotch length measurement.
crotch length measure. SYMCAD method. This system does not have a crotch length measure. Discussion. ImageTwin was specifically designed for use in apparel. In this research, they were the only system to have a crotch length. The only standard that included the crotch length is the ASTM 5586 for Women over 55. Karla P. Simmons
50
A-1 Paper
Other standards should include the crotch length also. This is a critical measure for the appropriate fit of pants, shorts, or variations of each.
Table 18. Crotch Length Terms Used in Selected Scanner Models Crotch Length ImageTwin
Crotch Length
Cyberware
n/a
SYMCAD
n/a
Thigh Circumference Traditional measurement method. The thigh circumference is defined as the maximum circumference of the upper leg close to the crotch (ASTMa, 1995; ASTM, 1999); parallel to the floor (ASTMb, 1995); at the juncture with the buttock (Gordon, et al, 1989); at the highest thigh position (ISO, 1989). Traditional measurement method for mid-thigh circumference. The horizontal circumference of the thigh measured midway between the hip and the knee (ISO, 1989; ASTMa, 1995; ASTM, 1999); parallel to the floor (ASTMb, 1995). ImageTwin
method. The “thigh” measure offers
user defined parameters for several choices on defining the position of the thigh. The system allows for a fixed location of the search for the thigh. The default uses this parameter by placing the thigh 2 inches below the crotch. You can also program the system to find the largest Karla P. Simmons
51
Figure 31. Thigh circumference measurement. A-1 Paper
circumference between the upper and lower limits using the knee as the lower limits or defining another one usually above the knee ([TC2], 1999). Cyberware method. This system does not have a thigh circumference measure. SYMCAD method. This system does not have a thigh circumference measure. Discussion. The ImageTwin system allows for the determination of the thigh circumference and the mid-thigh circumference. For pattern making, the largest circumference is the one needed whether it is at the crotch or midway between the hip and knee, however, it is also very important to know where that measure was located.
Table 19. Thigh Circumference Terms Used in Selected Scanner Models Thigh Circumference ImageTwin
Thigh
Cyberware
n/a
SYMCAD
n/a
Bicep Circumference Traditional measurement method. The bicep circumference is taken with the arms down. It is the measure of the maximum upper arm circumference parallel to the floor and usually taken near the level of the armpit (ASTMb, 1995); between the shoulder joint and the elbow (ASTMa, 1995; ASTM, 1999); at the lowest scye level (ISO, 1989); with the subject extending upper arm horizontally, Karla P. Simmons
52
A-1 Paper
the elbow flexed at 90 degrees, the fist clenched and held facing the head, and the subject exerting maximum effort in making the muscle flex, the circumference of the flexed biceps muscle of the upper arm is measured (Gordon, et al, 1989). ImageTwin
Method. The “biceps” is the
circumference of the arm taken about 2 inches below the armpit. It is not necessarily the largest circumference of the upper arm ([TC2], 1999). Cyberware Method. This system does not have a bicep circumference measure. SYMCAD method. This system does not have a bicep circumference measure. Discussion. The bicep circumference
Figure 32. Bicep circumference measurement.
needs to be the largest circumference of the upper arm. The ImageTwin system has a bicep circumference measure but it does not reflect the maximum circumference. Table 20. Bicep Circumference Terms Used in Selected Scanner Models Bicep Circumference ImageTwin
Bicep
Cyberware
n/a
SYMCAD
n/a
Wrist Circumference Traditional measurement method. The wrist circumference is defines as the girth over the wrist bone (ISO, 1989); over the prominence of the outer wrist Karla P. Simmons
53
A-1 Paper
bone (ASTMb, 1995); over the inner and outer prominence at the lower end of the forearm (ASTMa, 1995; ASTM, 1999). ImageTwin
method. The “wrist circumference” is
the smallest circumference from the elbow to the knuckles of the hand (Ken Harrison, personal communication, September, 1999). Cyberware method. This system does not have a wrist circumference measure. SYMCAD method. This system does not have a wrist circumference measure.
Figure 33. Wrist circumference measurement.
Discussion. The wrist circumference should be defined by the location. In shirts that have a cuff, the wrist circumference should be taken at the most prominent bones to ensure the cuff will go over the area. For shirts that have elastic at the wrist, the wrist circumference would be the smallest area just below the prominent bones. ImageTwin
takes the smallest circumference, no matter
what the location. This is not in line with the current standards.
Table 21. Wrist Circumference Terms Used in Selected Scanner Models Wrist Circumference
Karla P. Simmons
ImageTwin
Wrist
Cyberware
n/a
SYMCAD
n/a
54
A-1 Paper
Conclusions and Recommendations Conclusions The apparel industry is diligently researching the usage of threedimensional body scanning for apparel design and the mass customization of garments. Body scanning technology is capable of extracting an infinite number of data types. However, a problem exists in the consistency of measuring techniques between scanners. Among the several scanners that are currently available, significant variance exists in how each captures specific body measurements. Until the data capture process of specific body measurements can be standardized or communicated among scanning systems, this technology cannot be utilized for its maximum benefit within the apparel industry. Classical anthropometric data provides information on static dimensions of the human body in standard postures (Kroemer, Kroemer, & Kroemer-Elbert, 1986). Body scanning is now allowing data to be captured in three-dimensions. With the use of 3D body scanners, body measurement techniques can be non-contact, instant, and accurate. However, how each scanner establishes landmarks and takes the measurements need to be established so that standardization of the data capture can be realized. In this study, seventeen measurements were chosen as being critical to the design of well fitting garments. On each of the seventeen measurements, the method of data capture was described for three different scanners, ImageTwin , Cyberware, and SYMCAD. A summary of traditional measurement terms compared to the selected scanner models is shown in Table 23. Karla P. Simmons
55
A-1 Paper
Of the seventeen measures in the study, ImageTwin was the only scanner that had all of the measures. They were most closely in line with the current standards or with what the standards should be, depending on the measure. The Cyberware scanner is only being used by the military for size estimation in their clothing issue. They use the WB4 in the issue of their dress coat, dress shirt, and pants. SYMCAD is just now beginning to be used in apparel. They have a set of 60+ measurements that are defined according to ISO standards (so they say). These measures allow no revision or adjustment for users needs. They also find it difficult to share information on anything that concerns their scanner. As mentioned previously, many of the traditional standards used by SYMCAD are inadequate for apparel fit needs and are imprecise. Ultimately, for this technology to serve the industry best, we must be able to clearly and precisely indicate how and where measurements were taken. These measures must also be accurate. We must be able to get all of the necessary measurements to ensure fit of the garments.
Karla P. Simmons
56
A-1 Paper
Table 23. Summary of Traditional Measurement Terms Compared to Selected Scanner Model Terms
Midneck
ImageTwin Collar
Neckbase Chest
Neck Chest
Bust
Bust
Waist-Natural Indentation Waist-Navel
Waist
Hips Seat
Hips Seat
Sleeve Length
Shirt Sleeve Length n/a Inseam Outseam
Arm Length Inseam Outseam
n/a
Cyberware Neck Circumference n/a n/a Chest Circumference n/a Waist Circumference n/a Seat Circumference Sleeve Length n/a Pant Inseam n/a
SYMCAD Neck Girth Neckbase Maximum Chest Girth Chest Girth Natural Waist Girth Waist Girth Belt Girth n/a Seat Girth Total Arm Length Arm Length Inside Leg Length Outside Leg Length Shoulder Length
Shoulder Length Across Chest Across Back Back of Neck to Waist
Shoulder Length
n/a
Across Chest Across Back Neck to Waist
n/a n/a n/a
Rise Crotch Length Thigh Circumference Bicep Circumference Wrist Circumference
Vertical Rise Crotch Length Thigh
n/a n/a n/a
Across Chest Across Back (1)Back Neck to Waist (2) Back Neck to Belt Body Rise n/a n/a
Bicep
n/a
n/a
Wrist
n/a
n/a
Karla P. Simmons
57
A-1 Paper
Recommendations This research will establish a benchmark for the standardization of using 3D body scanners globally in the manufacture of apparel. It will enable the technology transfer of the individual components of mass customization and rapid prototyping to become efficient and less laborious as to facilitate greater usage in the apparel industry. It will also help governing bodies of current standards for body and garment sizing, such as ASTM and ISO, see a glimpse of this important issue and raise new questions for further study. Recommendations from this research include: •
Current standards need to be revised to include three-dimensional body scanning or create a new set of standards specifically for body scanning. These standards need to take into account the terminology of measures and the non-palpatation by the measurer or movement of the subject.
•
Terminology for the individual measures between the scanners need to be standardized. This can only happen if all scanner companies are willing to share their information.
•
This research only compared three of the major scanners available. Other research should be targeted on other scanning systems.
•
Research should be initiated concerning gathering information from the “hardto-get-to” companies that are reluctant to share. All available resources should be utilized to get this information.
Karla P. Simmons
58
A-1 Paper
References
Addleman, S. (1997). Whole-body 3D scanner and scan data report. SPIE, 3023, 2-5. Addleman, D. & Addleman, L. (1985). Rapid 3D digitizing. Computer Graphics World, 8, 42-44. American Standards for Testing and Materials (ASTM). (1995a). Standard table of body measurements for adult female misses figure type, sizes 2-20. (Vol. 07-02, Designation: D5585-95). West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM. American Standards for Testing and Materials (ASTM). (1995b). Standard table of body measurements for women aged 55 and older (all figure type). (Vol. 07-02, Designation: D5586-95). West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM. American Standards for Testing and Materials (ASTM). (1999). Standard terminology relating to body dimensions for apparel sizing. (Vol. 07-02, Designation: D5219-99). West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM. Anthropometry. (2000, June 21). Anthropometry. [Online]. Available: http://www.sameint.it/dietosys/diets/englboro/bro03.htm [6/21/00]. Apparel Research Network (ARN). (2000, August 13). Apparel Research Network (ARN) redesigned 3-D whole body scanner-WBX for recruit clothing issues. ARN homepage available online at: http://arn.iitri.org/docs/scan/systems/wbxwar.html [8/13/00]. Apparel Research Network (ARN). (1999, July 19). Apparel Research Network (ARN): ARNscan repeatability test: 19-23 July 1999. ARN homepage available online at: http://arn.iitri.org/ipr/3d-scan/repeat.html [9/11/00]. Karla P. Simmons
59
A-1 Paper
Arridge, S.R., Moss, J.P., Linney, A.D. & James, D. (1985). Three dimensional digitization of the face and skull. Journal of Maxillofacial Surgery, 13, 136143. Beecher, R.M. (1999, Novemebr 24). Automating information extraction from 3D body scan data. ARN homepage available online at: http://arn.iitri.org/ftr/br03/br03.html [11/24/00]. Bennett, K.A. & Osborne, R.H. (1986). Interobserver measurement reliability in anthropometry. Human Biology, 39, 124-130. Bray, G.A., Greenway, F.L., & Molitch, M.E. (1978). Use of anthropometric measures to assess weight loss. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 31, 769-73. Brunsman, M.A., Daanen, H.M. & Robinette, K.M. (1997). Optimal postures and positioning for human body scanning. IEEE, 266-273. Byran, G.J., Davies, E.R., & Middlemiss, S. H. (1996). Skeletal anatomy, 3rd ed. New York: Churchill Livingston. CAD Modelling (1992). Sales brochure (Piazza Beccaria, n.6. 50121). Florence, Italy: Author. Cameron, N. (1984). The measurement of human growth. London: Croom Helm. Cameron, N. (1986). The methods of auxological anthropology. In: Faulkner, F., Tanner, J.M. (Eds). Human Growth, 3, pp. 3-46. New York: Plenum Press. Clerget, M., Germain, F., & Kryze, J. (1977, September 1). Process and apparatus for optically exploring the surface of the body (United States Patent 829,936). United State Patent and Trademark Office. 60
Karla P. Simmons
A-1 Paper
Cook, T.D. & Campbell, D.T. (1979). Quasi-experimental design and analysis issues for field surveys. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin. Croney, John. (1971). Anthropometrics for designers. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company. Cyberware (2000a, September 13). Corporate backgrounder. Cyberware homepage available online at: http://www.cyberware.com/info/backgrounder.html [9/13/00]. Cyberware. (2000b, June 19). Whole body color 3D scanner: Model WB4. Cyberware homepage available online at: http://www.cyberware.com/products/wbInfo.html [6/19/00]. Cyberware. (2000c, June 19). Custom scanner: Whole body color 3D scanner: WBX prototype. Cyberware homepage available online at: http://www.cyberware.com/products/wbxInfo.html [6/19/00]. Czaja, S. (1984). Hand anthropometrics. (Technical paper with comments). Washington, D.C.: US Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance board. Daanen, H., Taylor, S.E., Brunsman, M.A., & Nurre, J. H. (1997). Absolute accuracy of the the Cyberware WB4 whole body scanner. SPIE, 3023, 612. Financial Times (1998, February 13). Cut down to size. Financial Times [Online]. Available: http://www.symcad.com/eng/ukpress.html [6/19/00]. Foster, T.A., Webber, L.S., & Sathanur, R. (1980). Measurement error of risk factor variables in an oeidemiologic study of children: The Bugalusa heart study. Journal of Chronic Disease, 33, 661-72. 61
Karla P. Simmons
A-1 Paper
Goldsberry, E. & Reich, N. (1989, September). It either fits or it doesn’t. ASTM Standardization News, 17(9), 42-44. Gordon, C.C. & Bradtmiller, B. (1992). Interobserver error in a large scale anthropometric survey. American Journal of Human Biology,4, 253-263. Gordon, C.C., Bradtmiller, B., Churchill, T., Clauser, C.E. McConville, J.T., Tebbetts, I.O., & Walker, R.A. (1989). 1988 Anthropometric survey of U.S. Army personnel: Methods and summary statistics (Technical Report NATICK/TR-89/044). Natick, MA : U.S. Army Natick Research, Development, and Engineering Center. Halioua, M.L. & Hsin-Chu. (1989). Optical three-dimensional sensing by phase measuring profilometry. Optics and Lasers in Engineering, 0143-8166, 185-215. Halioua, M., Krishnamurthy, R.S., Liu, H., & Chiang, F.P. (1984). Projection moire` with moving gratings for automated 3-D topography. Applied Optics, 22, 850-855. Hertzberg, H.T.E. (1955). Some contributions of applied physical anthropology to human engineering. Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 63, 616-629. Himes, J.H. (1989). Reliability of anthropometric methods and replicate measurements. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 40, 197-203. Hurley, J.D., Demers, M.H., Wulpern, R.C., & Grindon, J.R. (1997). Body measurement system using white light projected patterns for made-tomeasure apparel. SPIE, 3131, 212-223.
Karla P. Simmons
62
A-1 Paper
Hyperphysics. (2000). Gauss’s law [Online]. Available: http://hyperphysics.phyastr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/gaulaw.html [11/05/00]. International Organization for Standardization (ISO). (1981). Size designation of clothes-definition and body measurement procedure. (Reference No. 3635-1981). Switzerland: ISO. International Organization for Standardization (ISO). (1989). Garment construction and anthropometric surveys-body dimensions. (Reference No. 8559-1989). Switzerland: ISO. Ito, I. (1979, July 20). Apparatus for measuring the contour configuration of articles. (U.K. Patent G.B. 2030286 b). London: British Patent Office. Jamison, P.L. & Zegura, S.L. (1974). A univariate and multivariate examination of measurement error in anthropometry. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 40, 197-203. Johnston, F.E. & Martorell, R. (1988). Population surveys. In T.G. Lohman, A.F. Roche, and R. Martorell (Eds.): Anthropometric Standardization Reference Manual. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Books, 107-110. Johnston, F.E. , Hamill, P.V.V., & Lemshow, S. (1972). Skinfold thickness of children 6-11 years, United States (Vital and Health Statistics, Series 11, No. 120). Washington, D.C: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Jones, F.W. (1929). Measurements and landmarks in physical anthropology. Honolulu, Hawaii: Bernice P. Bishop Museum.
Karla P. Simmons
63
A-1 Paper
Kroemer, K.H.E., Kroemer, H.J., & Kroemer-Elbert, K.E. (1986). Engineering physiology: Physiologic bases of human factors/ergonomics. Amsterdam: Elsevier. L’ALSACE. (1999, June 30). From different angles. L’ALSACE [Online]. Available: http://www.symcad.com/eng/ukpress.html [6/19/00]. Lapp, R. E. (1961). The new priesthood. New York: Harper & Row. Lovesey, E.J. (1964). Some factors determining the design of anthropometric dummies. Unpublished diploma thesis. The College of Aeronautics. Magnant, D. (1985). Capteur tridemensional sans contact. Proceedings of the Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers, 602, 18-22. Malina, R.M., Hamill, P.V.V., & Lemshow, S. (1972). Selected body measurements of children 6-11 years, United States (Vital and Health Statistics, Series 11, No. 123). Washington, D.C: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Malina, R.M., Hamill, P.V.V., & Lemshow, S. (1974). Body dimensions and proportions, white and negro children 6-11 years, United States (Vital and Health Statistics, Series 11, No. 143). Washington, D.C: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Marks, G.C., Habicht, J.P., & Mueller, W.H. (1989). Reliability, dependability, and precision of anthropometric measurements. American Journal of Epidemiology, 130 (3), 578-587. Marshall, E.L. (1937). The objectivity of anthropometric measurments taken on eight- and nine-year-old white males. Child Development, 8, 249-56.
Karla P. Simmons
64
A-1 Paper
Martorell, R., Habicht, J.P., & Yarbrough, C. (1975). The identification and evaluation of measurment variability in the antropometry of preschool children. American Journal of Physical Antrhopology, 43, 347-52. Meadows, D.M., Johnson, W.O., & Allen J. (1970). Generation of surface countours by Moire` patterns. Applied Optics, 9, 942-947. McConville, J.T. (1979). Anthropometric source book volume I: Anthropometry for designers. (NASA Reference Publication No. 1024). Scientific and Technical Information Office. Meredith, H.V. (1936). The reliability of anthropometric measurments taken on eight- and nine-year-old white males. Child Development, 7, 262-72. Montagu, M.F.A. (1960). A handbook of anthropometry. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas. Mueller, W.H. & Martorell, R. (1988). Reliability and accuracy of measurement. In T.G. Lohman, A.F. Roche, and R. Martorell (Eds.): Anthropometric Standardization Reference Manual. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Books, pp.83-86. National Bureau of Standards (NBS). (1971). Body measurements for the sizing of women’s patterns and apparel. (NBS Voluntary Product Standard PS 42-70). Gaithersburg, MD: United State Department of Commerce/ National Bureau of Standards. O’Brien, R. & Shelton, W.C. (1941, December). Women’s measurements for garment and pattern construction. (Miscellaneous Publication No. 454). Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.
Karla P. Simmons
65
A-1 Paper
Paquette, S. (1996, September). 3D scanning in apparel design and human engineering. IEEE Computer Graphics and Application, 16 (5), 11-15. Roe, R.W. (1993). Occupant packaging. In J.B. Peacock & W. Karwoski (Eds.), Automotive ergonomics-Human factors in the design and use of automobiles, (pp. 11-42). London: Taylor & Francis. Roebuck, Jr., J.A. (1995). Anthropometric methods: Designing to fit the human body. Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors & Ergonomics Society. Roebuck, Jr. J.A., Kroemer, K.H.E. & Thomson, W.G. (1975). Engineering anthropometry methods. New York: Wiley. Sanders, M.S. & Shaw, B.E. (1985). US truck driver anthropometric and truck work space data survey: Sample selection and methodology (SAE Technical Paper 852315). Warrendale, PA: Society of Automotive Engineers. Snedecor, G.W. & Cochran, W.G. (1980). Statistical methods. 7th ed. Ames: Iowa State University Press, p. 183. SYMCAD. (2000, August 23). Measurements automatically taken by SYMCAD. Unpublished internal document. Takada, M., & Esaki, T. (1981, Janaury 26). Method and apparatus for measuring human body or the like (U.K. Patent G.B. 2069690 B). London: British Patent Office. (TC2). (1999). [Body scanner measurement descriptions.] Unpublished internal document.
Karla P. Simmons
66
A-1 Paper
(TC2). (2000, July 25). (TC2) joins forces with Konover Property Trust subsidiary to launch ImageTwin : Digital Body Scanning and Measurement System [Online]. Available: http://www.tc2.com/Home/HomeNews.htm [10/23/00]. TELMAT. (2000, November 3). Our product range. [Online]. Available: http://www.telmat-net.fr/Eng/products.htm [11/03/00]. Tortora, G.J. (1986). Principles of human anatomy, 4th ed. New York: Harper & Row. Utermohle, C.J. & Zegura, S.L. (1982). Intra- and interobserver error in craniometry: a cautionary tale. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 57, 303-310. Utermohle, C.J., Zegura, S.L., & Heathcote, G. M. (1983). Multiple observers, humidity, and choice of precision of statistics: factors influencing craniometric data quality. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 61, 85-95. Vietorisz, T. (1964, December 16). Improvements in or relating to the scanning of objects to provide indications of shape (U.K. Patent 1,078,108). London: British Patent Office. Webster. (1987). Webster’s ninth new collegiate dictionary. Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster. West, G.M. (1993). Automated shape anthropometry. Unpublished doctoral thesis. Loughborough University of Technology.
Karla P. Simmons
67
A-1 Paper
World Clothing Manufacturer (1996, May 4). Shape of things to come? World Clothing Manufacturer, 4 [Online]. Available: http://www.symcad.com/ eng/ukpress.html [6/19/00].
Karla P. Simmons
68
A-1 Paper
