Thigh-Derived Inertial Sensor Metrics to Assess the Sit-to-Stand and Stand-to-Sit Transitions in the Timed Up and Go (TUG) Task for Quantifying Mobility Impairment in Multiple Sclerosis

Abstract

Introduction: Inertial sensors generate objective and sensitive metrics of movement disability that may indicate fall risk in many clinical conditions including multiple sclerosis (MS). The Timed-Up-And-Go (TUG) task is used to assess patient mobility because it incorporates clinically-relevant submovements during standing. Most sensor-based TUG research has focused on the placement of sensors at the spine, hip or ankles; an examination of thigh activity in TUG in multiple sclerosis is wanting.Methods: We used validated sensors (x-IMU by x-io) to derive transparent metrics for the sit-to-stand (SI-ST) transition and the stand-to-sit (ST-SI) transition of TUG, and compared effect sizes for metrics from inertial sensors on the thighs to effect sizes for metrics from a sensor placed at the L3 level of the lumbar spine. Twenty-three healthy volunteers were compared to 17 ambulatory persons with MS (PwMS, HAI ≤ 2).Results: During the SI-ST transition, the metric with the largest effect size comparing healthy volunteers to PwMS was the Area Under the Curve of the thigh angular velocity in the pitch direction–representing both thigh and knee extension; the peak of the spine pitch angular velocity during SI-ST also had a large effect size, as did some temporal measures of duration of SI-ST, although less so. During the ST-SI transition the metric with the largest effect size in PwMS was the peak of the spine angular velocity curve in the roll direction. A regression was performed.Discussion: We propose for PwMS that the diminished peak angular velocity during SI-ST directly represents extensor weakness, while the increased roll during ST-SI represents diminished postural control.Conclusions: During the SI-ST transition of TUG, angular velocities can discriminate between healthy volunteers and ambulatory PwMS better than temporal features. Sensor placement on the thighs provides additional discrimination compared to sensor placement at the lumbar spine.

SPARC Metrics Provide Mobility Smoothness Assessment in Oldest-Old With and Without a History of Falls: A Case Control Study

“…We used three trials of each type of the TUG test to assess both possible learning and fatigue effects in the oldest-old. A similar approach was used in a previous study in multiple sclerosis (Witchel et al, 2018). The participants were seated on a standard chair (43 cm in height, without armrest) and asked to get up and walk as fast as possible.…”

Validity of a New 3-D Motion Analysis Tool for the Assessment of Knee, Hip and Spine Joint Angles during the Single Leg Squat

“…This study shows that easily accessible technology is likely to enter the market for a broad audience of professionals from different fields. The recent research interest from orthopedic and neurologic rehabilitation specialists in this type of technology shows that there is a loud call for quantification of many parameters in their specific patient populations [2,4,9,17,[19][20][21]31,34,45]. Every movement related health problem would thus likely have its own clinical relevant movement parameters.…”

“…Active sensors recently proved to be useful and reliable in the assessment of squatting, jumping and walking in patients after ACL reconstruction [19]. Currently, active sensor monitoring of movement is the subject of many studies in the field of orthopedic and neurologic rehabilitation and sports injury populations [17,[20][21][22].…”

Beyond center-based testing: Understanding and improving functioning with wearable technology in MS

“…22 A recent validation of a model of instrumented TUG in pwMS revealed that the movement of the thigh during the sit-to-stand transition was the most informative of all the measured body segments. 23 This evidence opens interesting views on the possible implementation of a reliable, accurate, and user-friendly TUG based on a smartphone simply positioned in the patient’s pocket. 24…”