Comparison of kinematic and kinetic parameters calculated using a cluster-based model and Vicon’s plug-in gait

Abstract

Gait analysis is an important clinical tool. A variety of models are used for gait analysis, each yielding different results. Errors in model outputs can occur due to inaccurate marker placement and skin motion artefacts, which may be reduced using a cluster-based model. We aimed to compare a custom-made cluster model (ClusBB) with Vicon's plug-in gait. A total of 21 healthy subjects wore marker sets for the ClusBB and plug-in gait models simultaneously while walking on a 6-m walkway. Marker and force plate data were captured synchronously and joint angles/moments were calculated using both models. There was good correlation between the models (coefficient of multiple correlations > 0.65) and good intra-session correlation for both models (coefficient of multiple correlations > 0.80). Inter-subject variability was high, ranging from 15° to 40° in the sagittal plane and 11° to 52° in the coronal and transverse planes. Intra-subject variability was small for both ClusBB and plug-in gait models. Inter-subject variance tended to be high in both models for knee abduction/adduction, but particularly so for plug-in gait, suggesting that a cluster-based model may reduce the variability. The inter-subject variance in out-of-sagittal plane data is of particular importance clinically, given the reliance on these datasets in clinical decision-making.

Biomechanical influence of deficient posterolateral corner structures on knee joint kinematics: A computational study

“…Subjects performed gait and squatting activities, and ground reaction forces were measured using a force plate (Figure ). In addition, tracks of marker locations were measured using a three‐dimensional (3D) motion capture system (Vicon, Oxford, UK) . EMG signals were recorded using an EMG sensor (Delsys, Boston, MA) for the following muscles: Gluteus maximus, rectus femoris, vastus lateralis, biceps femoris, semimembranosus, gastrocnemius medialis, tibialis anterior, and soleus medialis.…”

Comparison of Gait Biomechanics in Patients with and without Knee Osteoarthritis during Different Phases of Gait

“…Kinematic and kinetic parameters at the ankle, knee, and hip were determined using a custom-made cluster model (ClussBB), as described previously by Duffell et al in 2014. 17 This model uses the Horsman method to define hip joint centres. 18 and knee and ankle joint centres were defined as the central points between medial and lateral femoral epicondyles and malleoli, respectively.…”

“…Twenty reflective markers were positioned on the patient's pelvis and lower limbs and four marker clusters were positioned on the patient's left and right thigh and calf segments. 17 A static trial was initially captured. Two Kistler portable force plates (Kistler Type 9286B, Kistler Instrumente AG, Winterthur, Switzerland) were embedded into a 6-m walkway, and a 10-camera Vicon motion capture system was used (Vicon Motion Systems Ltd, Oxford, UK).…”

Repeatability of the three dimensional kinematics of the pelvis, spine and lower limbs while performing selected exercises

“…The VICON system is an optical tracking system which tracks three-dimensional movement trajectories of reflective markers with up to 1mm accuracy. It is seen as the gold standard in optical gait analysis, and it is used for making comparisons with other systems [3][4][5][6].…”