Validation of Inertial Measurement Unit-Based Motion Capture with a Single Calibration File for Assessing Gait in Healthy Young Adults

Rekant, Julie; Chambers, April J.

doi:10.2139/ssrn.4002945

Cited by 2 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…IMU and OMC kinematics were most similar for participants in the sagittal plane, especially with knee flexion. This is consistent with previous work in normal-weight adults which found greatest similarity between an IMU and OMC system in the sagittal plane [ 31 , 32 ]. The systems were most dissimilar at the ankle, where axis mixing in the IMU signal affected kinematic outputs in the transverse and frontal planes.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

“…Some ranges of angles for dorsiflexion, ankle abduction, ankle rotation, and hip rotation were found to be acceptable. This is similar to previous findings in normal-weight adults [ 32 ] with hip abduction demonstrating the greatest range of data within the window of acceptability and large ranges of data in the window of acceptability for ankle dorsiflexion and hip rotation.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

“…Frontal and sagittal plane motion at the hip had a larger spread in IMU data compared to OMC, especially at the beginning and end of the gait cycle (Figure 3). This was not observed in previous work in normal-weight adults [31,32] and therefore may be attributed to the body habitus of participants. Excess bodyweight concentrated around the abdomen and buttock likely affect variability in pelvis IMU measurements which contribute to hip kinematic calculations.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 87%

“…Individual body shape or standing posture variation will impact IMU orientation during the calibration process and affect joint angle calculations. Previous work comparing IMUs to OMC in normal-weight adults found a similar phenomenon [32] and the authors encourage future work exploring mean-centering data to look at the relative range of motion or exploring functional calibration procedures with the IMU system to eliminate subject-specific biases.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 66%

“…This is in alignment with findings of Berner et al [ 31 ] who found large systematic biases in ankle dorsiflexion (−5.8°) and hip flexion (−7.9°); however, this group found smaller biases (<5°) for hip rotation and abduction and did not evaluate ankle rotation. Our previous work in normal-weight adults found large biases in ankle rotation (−12.1°) [ 32 ]. Of note, a linear relationship can be observed for the Bland–Altman plot for hip flexion ( Figure 5 ) demonstrating that the magnitude of the differences between IMU and OMC increased as the hip flexion angle being measured increased.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Obesity-Specific Considerations for Assessing Gait with Inertial Measurement Unit-Based vs. Optokinetic Motion Capture

Rekant,

Rothenberger,

Chambers

2024

Sensors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Adults with obesity experience high rates of disability and rapid functional decline. Identifying movement dysfunction early can direct intervention and disrupt disability development; however, subtle changes in movement are difficult to detect with the naked eye. This study evaluated how a portable, inertial measurement unit (IMU)-based motion capture system compares to a laboratory-based optokinetic motion capture (OMC) system for evaluating gait kinematics in adults with obesity. Ten adults with obesity performed overground walking while equipped with the OMC and IMU systems. Fifteen gait cycles for each participant were extracted for the 150 total cycles analyzed. Kinematics were compared between OMC and IMU across the gait cycles (coefficient of multiple correlations), at clinically significant time points (interclass correlations), and over clinically relevant ranges (Bland–Altman plots). Sagittal plane kinematics were most similar between systems, especially at the knee. Sagittal plane joint angles at clinically meaningful timepoints were poorly associated except for ankle dorsiflexion at heel strike (ρ = 0.38) and minimum angle (ρ = 0.83). All motions except for ankle dorsiflexion and hip abduction had >5° difference between systems across the range of angles measured. While IMU-based motion capture shows promise for detecting subtle gait changes in adults with obesity, more work is needed before this method can replace traditional OMC. Future work should explore standardization procedures to improve consistency of IMU motion capture performance.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 87%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 66%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Obesity-Specific Considerations for Assessing Gait with Inertial Measurement Unit-Based vs. Optokinetic Motion Capture

Rekant,

Rothenberger,

Chambers

2024

Sensors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Obesity-Specific Considerations for Assessing Gait with Inertial Measurement Unit-Based vs Optokinetic Motion Capture

Rekant,

Rothenberger,

Chambers

2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Adults with obesity experience high rates of disability and rapid functional decline. Identifying movement dysfunction early can direct intervention and disrupt disability development, however subtle changes in movement are difficult to detect with the naked eye. This study evaluated how a portable, inertial measurement unit (IMU)-based motion capture system compares to a laboratory-based optokinetic motion capture (OMC) system for evaluating gait kinematics in adults with obesity. Ten adults with obesity performed overground walking while equipped with the OMC and IMU systems. Fifteen gait cycles for each participant were extracted for 150 total cycles analyzed. Kinematics were compared between OMC and IMU across the gait cycles (coefficient of multiple correlations), at clinically significant time points (interclass correlations), and over clinically relevant ranges (Bland Altman plots). Sagittal plane kinematics were most similar between systems, especially at the knee. Sagittal plane joint angles at clinically meaningful timepoints were poorly associated except for ankle dorsiflexion at heel strike (ρ=0.38) and minimum angle (ρ=0.83). Most motions had more than 5° difference between systems across the range of angles measured. IMU-based motion capture shows promise for detecting subtle gait changes in adults with obesity. However, more work is needed before this method can replace traditional OMC.

show abstract

Validation of Inertial Measurement Unit-Based Motion Capture with a Single Calibration File for Assessing Gait in Healthy Young Adults

Cited by 2 publications

References 25 publications

Obesity-Specific Considerations for Assessing Gait with Inertial Measurement Unit-Based vs. Optokinetic Motion Capture

Obesity-Specific Considerations for Assessing Gait with Inertial Measurement Unit-Based vs. Optokinetic Motion Capture

Obesity-Specific Considerations for Assessing Gait with Inertial Measurement Unit-Based vs Optokinetic Motion Capture

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About