To correctly measure the knee joint angle, this study utilized a Qualisys motion capture system and also used it as the reference to assess the validity of the study's Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) system that consisted of four IMU sensors and the Knee Angle Recorder software. The validity was evaluated by the root mean square (RMS) of different angles and the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) values between the Qualisys system and the IMU system.
Methods
Four functional knee movement tests for ten healthy participants were investigated, which were the knee flexion test, the hip and knee flexion test, the forward step test and the leg abduction test, and the walking test.
Results
The outcomes of the knee flexion test, the hip and knee flexion test, the forward step test, and the walking test showed that the RMS of different angles were less than 6°. The ICC values were in the range of 0.84 to 0.99. However, the leg abduction test showed a poor correlation in the measurement of the knee abduction-adduction movement.
Conclusion
The IMU system used in this study is a new good method to measure the knee flexion-extension movement.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
A pilot case series for concurrent validation of inertial measurement units to motion capture in individuals who use unilateral lower-limb prostheses MG Finco, Rita M Patterson, Sarah C Moudy Journal of Rehabilitation and Assistive Technologies Engineering.2023;[Epub] CrossRef
Wearable knee joint fatigue estimating system based on curvature and pressure sensing Tengyue Zou, Haojun Huang, Xuanyu Huang, Jialun Chen, Xiaodong Pan, Jiawei Xin Technology and Health Care.2022; 30(6): 1489. CrossRef
Validity and reliability of inertial measurement units measurements for running kinematics in different foot strike pattern runners Ziwei Zeng, Yue Liu, Pan Li, Lin Wang Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology.2022;[Epub] CrossRef
Measuring markers of aging and knee osteoarthritis gait using inertial measurement units Jocelyn F. Hafer, Seraphina G. Provenzano, Kathy L. Kern, Cristine E. Agresta, John A. Grant, Ronald F. Zernicke Journal of Biomechanics.2020; 99: 109567. CrossRef
Determining anatomical frames via inertial motion capture: A survey of methods Rachel V. Vitali, Noel C. Perkins Journal of Biomechanics.2020; 106: 109832. CrossRef
Verification of a Portable Motion Tracking System for Remote Management of Physical Rehabilitation of the Knee Kevin M. Bell, Chukwudi Onyeukwu, Michael P. McClincy, Marcus Allen, Laura Bechard, Abhigyan Mukherjee, Robert A. Hartman, Clair Smith, Andrew D. Lynch, James J. Irrgang Sensors.2019; 19(5): 1021. CrossRef
Validity and Reliability of Wearable Sensors for Joint Angle Estimation: A Systematic Review Isabelle Poitras, Frédérique Dupuis, Mathieu Bielmann, Alexandre Campeau-Lecours, Catherine Mercier, Laurent Bouyer, Jean-Sébastien Roy Sensors.2019; 19(7): 1555. CrossRef
Mobile Applications in Evaluations of Knee Joint Kinematics: A Pilot Study Przemysław Lisiński, Agnieszka Wareńczak, Krystyna Hejdysz, Paweł Sip, Jarosław Gośliński, Piotr Owczarek, Justyna Jonak, Jagoda Goślińska Sensors.2019; 19(17): 3675. CrossRef
Use of Wearable Sensor Technology in Gait, Balance, and Range of Motion Analysis Steven Díaz, Jeannie B. Stephenson, Miguel A. Labrador Applied Sciences.2019; 10(1): 234. CrossRef
Mobile assessment of the lower limb kinematics in healthy persons and in persons with degenerative knee disorders: A systematic review R. van der Straaten, L. De Baets, I. Jonkers, A. Timmermans Gait & Posture.2018; 59: 229. CrossRef
Measuring joint kinematics of treadmill walking and running: Comparison between an inertial sensor based system and a camera-based system Corina Nüesch, Elena Roos, Geert Pagenstert, Annegret Mündermann Journal of Biomechanics.2017; 57: 32. CrossRef
Evaluating physical function and activity in the elderly patient using wearable motion sensors Bernd Grimm, Stijn Bolink EFORT Open Reviews.2016; 1(5): 112. CrossRef