1Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Hanyang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
2Department of Arts & Technology, School of Industrial Information Studies, Hanyang University, Seoul, Korea
Corresponding author: Sang-Bok Moon Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Hanyang University College of Medicine, 222 Wangsimni-ro, Seongdong-gu, Seoul 04763, Korea. Tel: +82-2- 2290-9353, Fax: +82-2-2290-9231, E-mail: msb1220@hanmail.net
• Received: June 14, 2018 • Accepted: August 7, 2018
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
To replace camera-based three-dimensional motion analyzers which are widely used to analyze body movements and gait but are also costly and require a large dedicated space, this study evaluates the validity and reliability of inertial measurement unit (IMU)-based systems by analyzing their spatio-temporal and kinematic measurement parameters.
Methods
The investigation was conducted in three separate hospitals with three healthy participants. IMUs were attached to the abdomen as well as the thigh, shank, and foot of both legs of each participant. Each participant then completed a 10-m gait course 10 times. During each gait cycle, the hips, knees, and ankle joints were observed from the sagittal, frontal, and transverse planes. The experiments were conducted with both a camerabased system and an IMU-based system. The measured gait analysis data were evaluated for validity and reliability using root mean square error (RMSE) and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) analyses.
Results
The differences between the RMSE values of the two systems determined through kinematic parameters ranged from a minimum of 1.83 to a maximum of 3.98 with a tolerance close to 1%. The results of this study also confirmed the reliability of the IMU-based system, and all of the variables showed a statistically high ICC.
Conclusion
These results confirmed that IMU-based systems can reliably replace camera-based systems for clinical body motion and gait analyses.
The level of improvement in gait and the quantification of body motion are two measures that corroborate clinical decisions in the treatment process, and are used for functional assessment in clinical gait analysis and rehabilitation [1-3]. There has been increasing interest in gait evaluation and improvement non-patients and young persons who have abnormal gait. Gait analysis has evolved from simple, two-dimensional video camera analysis to optical motion capture using several infrared cameras and three-dimensional (3D) motion analysis systems [4,5]. The 3D motion analyzers currently widely used for gait analysis record body motion by reading the location coordinate values of body markers attached to the body in real time using several infrared cameras in a limited space.
However, both the purchase prices and maintenance costs of these motion analyzers are high. Furthermore, several cameras and substantial amounts of space are required to take measurements from various angles. In addition, these systems are difficult to apply in clinical settings, because they have to be installed by professionals and require complex setup and preparation for experiments and data analysis [6-9].
Under different experimental conditions and environments, the measurements obtained can also differ based on the setting’s characteristics. Consequently, there are issues concerning the validity and reliability of the measurements obtained from these machines [10]. With the aim of developing systems that address the disadvantages outlined above, recent research has focused on gait analysis using inertial measurement units (IMUs) [11,12].
Recent advancements in sensor technology have enabled simple and economic analyses to be performed using IMUs. The inertial sensors used usually comprise a gyroscope, an accelerometer, and a magnetometer, which enable economical measurements of gravitational force and acceleration [6,13-17]. Changes in the Euler angle, yaw, pitch, and angle of the rolling axis can also be measured using the gyroscope [18].
Numerous studies on gait analysis using inertial sensors have focused on detecting the gait phase and measuring the joint and segment angles and stride lengths [19-21]. The results of these studies have indicated that wireless inertial sensor systems on the lower body can help analyze and evaluate gait characteristics [7].
However, the gait analysis data from these inertial sensor systems lack validation and reliability. Furthermore, inertial sensor systems are not widely used for clinical gait analysis because the associated technologies are not well developed; their accuracy is also doubtful [9]. This study investigates the accuracy of IMU-based sensor systems through the spatio-temporal and kinematic parameters of the same subject, and compares the findings with the results from camera-based 3D motion capture systems in order to determine whether IMU-based systems can replace camera-based systems.
Accordingly, a gait analysis system that analyzes and quantifies the kinematic data of a specific part of the body is developed.
Previous studies on IMU-based systems have largely been validated in the sagittal plane [20-22]. However, our study verified not only the joint angle, but also the temporal and spatial parameters in the sagittal, frontal, and transverse planes as well.
The measurements obtained from wearable IMU sensors on the lower limb were compared to those from a camera-based optical motion capture (OMC) system, and their validity was evaluated. Tests were conducted in multiple settings so as to confirm the reliability and effectiveness of IMUs. Our study presents the evaluation of an IMU-based gait analysis system in several laboratories with camera-based systems in order to verify its reliability among several operators.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Participant and gait measurement
The study subjects were healthy adult males with no musculoskeletal disabilities (three males: age, 38.3±2.9 years; weight, 78.0±10.4 kg; and height, 179.0±2.6 cm). The experiment was conducted in three different hospitals (i.e., National Rehabilitation Center, Veterans Health Service Medical Center, and Yonsei University Hospital) between March 2016 and May 2016.
Each hospital had all of the necessary equipment to simultaneously conduct gait pattern analyses using both the camera- and IMU-based systems (Fig. 1).
The participants were thoroughly informed about the purpose, experimental methods, procedures, and precautions of the study prior to the experiment. They also provided written informed consent. The procedures in this test were performed with the approval of the Hanyang University Guri Hospital (IRB No. GURI 2015-03-001-003).
Each participant completed a 10-m gait course 10 times in each experimental setting. The kinematic parameters of the hip, knee, and ankle joint during the gait cycle were inspected from the sagittal, frontal, and transverse planes. In addition, the spatio-temporal parameter was inspected. All experimental trials were conducted in identical conditions.
Experimental equipment and procedure
The camera-based systems used for the gait pattern analysis were a VICON MX-T10 (Vicon Motion Systems Ltd., Oxford, UK), which is the most widely used system, and a Raptor-E Digital Real Time System (Motion Analysis Corporation Inc., Santa Rosa, CA, USA). Among these two types of camera-based systems, VICON MX-T10 was used in hospitals A and C, while Raptor-E Digital Real Time System was used in hospital B. The IMU (35 mm×60 mm×25 mm)-based gait analysis system, Motion Track (R. Biotech Co. Ltd., Seoul, Korea), consisted of a gyroscope, an accelerometer, and magnetometer sensors.
A reflective marker-based 3D infrared camera system was simultaneously used to evaluate the validity of the IMU. The markers used to analyze the lower limb motion during gait were attached to the body using the plugin-gait marker set method. The wearable wireless IMUs were attached to the dorsa of both feet, the shafts of both tibias, and the middles of both femurs, as well as the lower abdomen, and were affixed with stretch bands. As shown in Fig. 2, the IMU sensors were placed on a holder so as to increase stability and accuracy.
Signals from each sensor were received and collected using Bluetooth. The spatio-temporal (i.e., gait cycle time, stance, swing phase, velocity, and distance) and kinematic (i.e., hip, knee, and ankle angle in three dimensions) data were analyzed using MATLAB v2010a (MathWorks Inc., Natick, MA, USA). Prior to the actual measurements, each participant underwent several trials with the markers and IMUs attached in order to familiarize himself with the gait conditions.
The validity of the gait analysis refers to how well it matches the true value, but the true value of the gait does not currently exist in theory. In this study, the validity of the gait analysis was evaluated using the root mean square error (RMSE) of the parameters simultaneously obtained through the camera- and IMU-based systems. RMSE is widely used to verify the validity of gait analysis by analyzing the average difference between the parameters [12,22,23]. If the value of the RMSE is small, then the signals are close to each other. The reliability of the IMU was inspected using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of the spatio-temporal and kinematic parameters measured by the IMU in three different experimental settings with a certain time interval between each. In particular, the kinematic parameters were divided into 100 points according to gait cycle, and ICC was calculated by comparing the parameters at each point, respectively. ICC was calculated in SPSS version 21.0 (IBM SPSS, Armonk, NY, USA).
Attitude and heading reference system (AHRS) module
The inertial sensor-based AHRS was designed and developed. The AHRS could objectively measure the kinematic motions of each joint when attached to the body joints. In addition, the AHRS measured the directions of the gravitational and magnetic fields of the Earth [18].
The AHRS module was composed of an inertial sensor, a microcontroller for receiving and processing the signals, a Bluetooth module for communication, and a battery charging circuit.
The inertial sensor used for the module was an integrated sensor (MPU9250; InvenSense, San Jose, CA, USA) composed of a gyroscope (range, ±2,000°/s), an accelerometer (range, ±16 g), and a magnetometer (range, ±49 G). The signals were programmed to be transmitted to the microcontroller through SPI communication at a frequency of 100 Hz in each signal. The collected angular velocity, acceleration, and magnetometer values were combined. The gradient descent algorithm was used to calculate the Euler angle, yaw, pitch, and roll of the AHRS module [18]. The calculated values were transmitted to a PC using a wireless Bluetooth module (PAN1321i; Panasonic, Osaka, Japan) [24].
The inaccurate measurement by the gyroscope of the angular velocity was supplemented, and the integrals were obtained in order to calculate and reliably determine the Euler angle based on the data from the magnetometer, which provided data on the Earth’s magnetic field using the gradient descent algorithm [9], as well as the data from the accelerometer, which provided data on the gravity and inertia.
Gait event detection and temporal parameter calculation
The differential calculated from the Euler angle of the foot determined the gait event (Fig. 3). The gait temporal parameters were also obtained. Fig. 3 presents the algorithm used to determine the temporal parameters using a gyroscope on the foot. The figure shows the quantification of the gyroscope features during the gait cycle of each foot observed from the sagittal plane [25].
The inertial sensor data based on the verified algorithm detected the heel strike (HS) and toe-off (TO) points [26].
The peak rotation rate is the maximum rotation rate of the ankle achieved during the swing phase [25-27]. The minimum value of the TO is the minimum value larger than the peak rotation value at mid-swing [25]. In addition, at HS, the peak of the negative rotation value is observed at the first minimum after the maximum rotation rate during the mid-swing period [25].
The gait cycle was formed so as to calculate the gait temporal parameters after the HS and TO detections. The temporal parameters (i.e., swing phase [SW] and stance phase [ST]) can be calculated using Eqs. (1) and (2), respectively, based on these time events [26-28].
(1)
SW(k)=HS(k+1)-TO(k)
(2)
ST(k)=GCT(k)-SW(k).
Spatial parameter calculation
In the spatial parameter calculation, the distance traveled by the subject was determined by the double integration of the momentary acceleration measurements. The position or distance values obtained by the integration were suitable only for a short term because of the drift error of the accelerometer [29]. In other words, the calculations of the velocity and the distance using the double integration of the acceleration measurements produced a relatively large accumulated error. These values should thus be measured after every step the pedestrian takes in order to avoid this accumulated error, as the successive measurements of speed and distance were not affected if the velocity and distance estimations were measured in each step. Therefore, the accumulated error of the AHRS was corrected in this way [29]. Fig. 4 shows a schematic diagram of the two-phase cumulative error reduction algorithm used to minimize the accumulated error of the double integration, which was calculated using the acceleration values and the angular velocity from the AHRS modules [30].
The velocity and distance were calculated by double integrating the acceleration measurements. The gravitation influences and accumulated error were removed so as to calculate accurate values.
Calculation of joint angles
A total of seven AHRS system modules were attached to the participant’s joints to measure the joint angles during the rehabilitation gait analysis. The modules were attached to the abdomen, bilateral femurs, bilateral tibias, and each of the feet using a stretch band. The angle joints were calculated using the Euler angles obtained from each joint. An algorithm to calculate the joint angles, which were an important biological measurement for rehabilitation, was also developed in this study [23,24].
Fig. 5 shows a conceptual map of the algorithm that calculates the joint angle in each segment; the map uses the joint angle between the femur and the tibia as an example. The example shows the method used to calculate the angle between the femur and tibia. The same algorithm can be applied to other segmental joint angles.
Fig. 5 represents the tibia anatomical (TA) and the femur anatomical (FA). Each sensor axis was labeled as tibia measurement (TM) and femur measurement (FM). The conversion matrices TTATM, which is a matrix wherein the sensor axis is converted to the tibial axis, and TTAFM, which is a matrix wherein the sensor axis is converted to the femoral axis, were used to convert the axis of each sensor into one single axis. The ultimate matrix representing the joint angle between the two sensors is expressed in Eq. (3) [23].
(3)
TFATA=TFATMMFSMT-1TTATM-1,TFATA=TFATM-100001010
S represents the alignment matrix between two axis sensors of the earth (i.e., FA and TA), while MF and MT represent the directions of the femur and the tibia relative to the axis of the Earth, respectively. As shown in Eq. (3), the TFATA matrix terms were used to calculate the joint angles: flexion/extension, abduction/adduction, and internal/external rotations.
A camera-based system was used to simultaneously determine the validity of the IMU and measure the spatiotemporal and kinematic parameters of the three healthy participants in the three different hospital settings; the results of the IMU- and camera-based systems were then compared to each other. The spatio-temporal and kinematic parameters of the three healthy participants measured with the IMU in different hospitals were compared so as to evaluate the reliability of the IMU. In addition, the reliability of the camera-based system in the three different hospitals was evaluated for one healthy participant.
Validity (IMU- vs. camera-based system) of spatiotemporal and kinematic parameters
The segmental joint angles on both lower limbs were measured with seven AHRS system modules in order to evaluate the performance of the gait analysis system. The attachment locations were the abdomen, the bilateral femurs and tibias, and the feet. The joint angles were calculated with the joint angle calculation algorithm based on the Euler angle of each joint as provided by the individual modules. The Euler angles obtained from the AHRS in the segmental joints while the participant completed the 10-m gait course were used to calculate the joint angles. Ten trials were conducted so as to measure under identical protocols. Tables 1 and 2 show the inspection results between the two systems measured at the three hospitals.
Table 1 shows the inspection results for the validity of the IMU-based system. The validity was evaluated by comparing the temporal and spatial parameters of the gait as measured by the camera- and IMU-based systems in the three separate hospitals.
The velocity measured with the IMUs was in the range of 1.18–1.22 m/s, whereas that measured with the camera-based system was in the range of 1.23–1.30 m/s. The stride lengths measured with the IMU- and camerabased systems were in the ranges of 1.19–1.26 m and 1.21–1.29 m, respectively.
The stance phase (%) measured with the IMUs was in the range of 57%–58%, whereas that with the camera-based system was in the range of 61%–63%. The swing phase (%) measured with the IMU- and camera-based systems were in the ranges of 42%–43% and 37%–39%, respectively. Overall, the values measured with the two systems did not show any remarkable differences.
Table 2 shows the inspection results for the validity related to the kinematic parameters of the IMU-based system obtained by comparing the gait data measured with the camera- and IMU-based systems in three different hospitals. The differences in the lower limb joint angles measured with the two systems were compared to analyze the accuracy of the IMUs. The segmental joint angles during the gait cycle were calculated based on the Euler angles obtained from the AHRS modules on each body segment. The values were processed in a 3D space on the sagittal, frontal, and transverse planes. Table 2 shows the RMSE values of each of the sagittal, frontal, and transverse planes.
The RMSE value of the ankle joint angle on the frontal plane was at its lowest at 1.39, while it it was at its highest at 4.37. The results verified the validity of the IMUs. Table 2 shows the RMSE values obtained at the hospitals.
Reliability (IMU- and camera-based systems) of spatiotemporal and kinematic parameters
The intra-rater and inter-rater reliabilities of the measurement results were examined using ICCs to verify their reliabilities. Therefore, an analytical method was used to evaluate the reliability of the IMU- and camera-based systems in order to verify the intra-rater and inter-rater reliabilities. The number of operators varied according to the task, and the experiment was conducted on three subjects in three hospitals.
Intra-rater reliability (IMU-based system, n=3) of spatiotemporal and kinematic parameters
One operator performed a gait test to measure the reliability of the IMU-based system and obtain the spatiotemporal and kinematic parameters of the three subjects at the three hospitals measured on different dates. The results in Table 3 show that the ICC of the kinematic parameters ranged from 0.884 to 0.998, which was highly correlated with all of the parameters. The spatio-temporal parameters were very high as well (0.830–0.894) (Table 3).
Inter-rater reliability (IMU-based system, n=3) of spatiotemporal and kinematic parameters
Three operators performed a gait test to measure the reliability of the IMU-based system and obtain the spatiotemporal and kinematic parameters of the three subjects at the three hospitals measured on different dates. According to the measured results, the ICC in the kinematic parameters ranged from 0.864 to 0.999, indicating a very high correlation for all of the parameters. The spatio-temporal parameters were very high as well (0.800–0.883) (Table 4).
Inter-rater reliability (camera-based system, n=1) of spatio-temporal and kinematic parameters
Operators working in the three different hospitals performed a gait test to verify the reliability of the camerabased system and record the spatio-temporal and kinematic parameters of the same subject.
As can be observed in Table 5, the ICC of the kinematic parameters was 0.368–0.996. The ICC for the hip internal/ external showed a particularly low correlation of 0.368. The ICC of the spatio-temporal parameters ranged from 0.733 to 0.802 (Table 5).
DISCUSSION
Gait analysis is an important indicator that can determine the levels of progression of several diseases, such as musculoskeletal disease, cerebral palsy, Parkinson disease, and stroke. In addition, interest in gait analysis is increasing not only in non-patients, but also in youth and adolescents who are still in the growth phase. Therefore, accurate gait analysis is crucial to identify the characteristics and problems of gait and to estimate and maintain health. Furthermore, systematic and accurate gait analysis and gait data should be able to provide feedback on causal diseases. Gait correction could play an important role in terms of health maintenance and clinical diagnosis/evaluation.
To date, camera-based gait analysis along with OMC is widely used for gait analysis. However, camera-based systems are very expensive, and their maintenance is costly. In addition, their measurements can be easily influenced not only by the software version they are using, but also by the motion capture system, protocol, pathway length, marker set, and other experimental setting characteristics. The combination and configuration of different hardware and software can produce large discrepancies in camera-based gait analysis systems [10]. Therefore, there are problems associated with the validity and reliability of such results.
Therefore, it is essential to find solutions for these problems. Concomitant with the increased interest in gait analysis and awareness of its importance, inexpensive inertial sensor-based wearable gait measuring sensors that are easy to use and require less space are currently being developed.
In this study, multiple clinical gait measurements of three healthy subjects obtained in three different hospitals were compared. A number of previous studies examining devices for gait analysis have analyzed fewer than five gait trials of fewer than 10 subjects [26,31,32]. In one study that performed more than 10 gait trials, the inclines and speeds of the treadmill were different, but there was no repetition under the same conditions [28]. There was another study conducted on 19 subjects, but the number of trials per subject was only two [33]. Compared with the previous studies, ten trials of the gait of three subjects in three hospitals have sufficient statistical significance in this study.
Inertial sensors were used to measure the gait pattern without being restricted by space. The gait data obtained through the inertial sensor-based analyzers were compared to those obtained by a camera-based gait analysis system, and their validity was verified. Furthermore, the reliabilities of the different measurement results taken with different IMU-based systems were verified.
The validity of the IMU-based system was evaluated by comparing the measurements obtained to those from a camera-based system that was used simultaneously to measure the spatio-temporal and kinematic parameters.
The results of this study were similar to those obtained by Watanabe et al. [7], who reported that the stride length measurements taken with a wearable sensor system measuring spatio-temporal parameters showed a consistent measurement accuracy. This indicates that the system used here could be used effectively and practically for gait measurements.
Lutzner et al. [34] reported that the accuracy of an inertial sensor is the highest in the velocity range of 1.0–2.2 m/s (3.6–7.9 km/h) and lower at velocities both below 1.0 m/s and above 2.2 m/s. The participant’s gait speed in this study was the self-selected speed at which the participant felt the most comfortable. The gait speed measured by the IMU system was in the range of 1.16–1.20 m/s, which was within the range of the accurate speed measurement. Therefore, the validity of the IMU based on the gait speed could be investigated in further studies by comparing them to camera-based systems.
The measurement results of the camera- and IMU-based systems sometimes showed a substantial difference because of the locations of the IMU attachments and magnetic waves. The discrepancies were produced during the calculation process with MATLAB. In this study, the lower limb joint angle measurements measured with the two systems were analyzed in order to inspect the accuracy of the IMU, which did not show any significant differences. The results indicated that the performances of the IMU-based systems were not inferior to the performances of the camera-based systems.
An IMU measures the kinematic values not via absolute coordinates, but by using acceleration, which is a relative value. Although inertial sensors are promising for applications in human motion detection, they could distort the kinematic data caused by the drift effect [31,35]. Therefore, as with other measurement sensors, the measurement accuracy of the IMU should be prioritized. Hamacher et al. [33] reported that a recalibration algorithm can be used to supplement the drawbacks of the system and thus increase the measurement accuracy.
Operators working in the three different hospitals performed a gait test so as to verify the reliability of the camera-based system and record the kinematic parameters of the same subject. The measurement results showed that the ICC was highly correlated in most kinematic parameters, while only that for hip internal/external was low at 0.368.
The discrepancies between the measurements taken with the camera-based systems in different experimental settings are typically larger in the hip, smaller in the ankle, and larger on transverse planes. Previous studies have indicated that these discrepancies are related to the estimation of the thigh segment pose [10].
The reliability verification process between the IMU-based systems in this study showed that although the same evaluator and the same participant conducted and completed all of the trials, respectively, small discrepancies were found between the measurements. Furthermore, although the same participant conducted all of the trials, the human gaits slightly differed in each occasion, which is not the case with machines. In addition, the discrepancies could corroborate the fact that the locations of the sensors are some of the most important causes of error in the inertial gait analysis [23].
The mechanical accuracy of IMUs could produce errors when measuring body movements, such as joint angle measurements. During the measurements of the acceleration and the angular velocity, the measurement plane of the IMU modules on the body did not mechanically coincide because of the curves on the body [32].
In this study, a camera-based system was simultaneously used with the IMU-based system. The differences between the RMSE values of the two systems determined through the kinematic parameters ranged from a minimum of 1.83 to a maximum of 3.98, with a tolerance close to 1%. The comparison results of the two systems indicated that IMU-based systems can replace camera-based systems [12,22,23]. The errors in the joint angles during the gait analysis were within the tolerance range, and these errors could be reduced by replacing the gyroscope, accelerometer, and magnetometer sensors with one integrated sensor. Therefore, the measurements taken by both systems were considered to be congruent.
The reliability levels were calculated using ICCs. In recent studies on gait analysis, ICC has been widely used for reliability verification [36,37]. In the reliability analysis, the ICC value, which is the coefficient of confidence, was ≥80, indicating a very high confidence level [38]. In this regard, the results of this study also showed that the reliability of the IMU-based system was confirmed, as all of the variables showed a statistically high ICC. Therefore, IMU-based systems are considered to be reliable for gait analysis. The spatio-temporal and kinematic parameters were measured as well. Consequently, the IMU-based system showed a higher ICC than the camerabased system. The ICC value of the camera-based system was low as a result of the difference in the position of the marker with respect to the subject, depending on the operator.
The limitations of this study include the fact that the study was conducted on three participants, and that the measurement session was extended over a long period. Although the healthy participant tried to maintain his health and physical activities for three months during the experimental trials, the measurements in different hospitals were taken over an extended period.
Further studies on IMU-based gait analysis will attract increased attention and demand. Therefore, a system that provides feedback for gait correction and evaluation will be developed in future work by investigating the validities and reliabilities of IMU-based systems for patients with abnormal gait.
This study verified the validity and the reliability of the IMU-based system. The results indicated that IMU-based systems can be widely used for rehabilitation and gait analysis in clinical settings. Accordingly, interactioncoaching systems must be developed so as to improve the accessibility of such systems. In addition, a new type of gait analysis system that portrays gait data as graphs, 3D avatars, and webcams should be developed. The development of IMU-based systems is expected to improve the qualities of patients’ lives, because the cost for gait analysis will decrease in the future.
In conclusion, an IMU-based system is inspected herein in order to verify its validity and potential to replace camera-based systems, which have limitations of high cost, complex procedures, and space restrictions. The results indicated that the IMU-based system can be effectively used in clinical settings and could be applied to other fields that require gait analysis. Furthermore, it is expected that such systems will come to be widely used in related fields. IMU-based systems provide accurate gait data in real time; hence, they can contribute to faster diagnosis and evaluation by physicians.
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was partly supported by Institute for Information & communications Technology Promotion grant funded by the Korea government (MSIT) (No. R-20160815- 004120, Development of joint damage prediction algorithm through machine learning of gait analysis data; and No. 2017-0-01800, Development of AR sports training platform based recognition technology on smart glass).
Fig. 1.
A subject has inertial measurement units on both dorsa of the feet, shafts of the tibias, middles of the femurs, and the lower abdomen in the room where the camera-based system is installed.
Fig. 2.
The inertial measurement unit sensor is placed on a holder so as to increase stability and accuracy.
Fig. 3.
The angle of rotation of the foot was used to determine the gait event through a gyroscope on the foot.
Fig. 4.
A two-phase cumulative error reduction algorithm is used to minimize the accumulated error of the double integration, which was calculated using the acceleration values and the angular velocity from the attitude and heading reference system (AHRS) modules.
Fig. 5.
A conceptual map presents the segmental joint angle calculation method in the knee joint as an example. The same algorithm can be applied to other segmental joint angles. AHRS, attitude and heading reference system; TA, tibia anatomical; TM, tibia measurement; FA, femur anatomical; FM, femur measurement.
Table 1.
Temporal and spatial parameters of the camera- and IMU-based systems obtained from the three separate hospitals
Velocity (m/s)
Stride length (m)
Stance phase (%)
Swing phase (%)
National Rehabilitation Center
IMU
1.22±0.06
1.26±0.09
58±2.0
42±1.0
Camera-based system
1.30±0.08
1.21±0.10
63±1.0
37±2.0
Veterans Health Service Medical Center
IMU
1.19±0.05
1.25±0.03
58±2.0
42±2.0
Camera-based system
1.24±0.10
1.29±0.07
61±2.0
39±1.0
Yonsei University Hospital
IMU
1.18±0.08
1.19±0.12
57±3.0
43±2.0
Camera-based system
1.23±0.11
1.24±0.03
61±1.0
39±1.0
Values are presented as mean±standard deviation.
IMU, inertial measurement unit.
Table 2.
Kinematic parameters for the camera- and IMU-based systems obtained from the three hospitals
RMSE
National Rehabilitation Center
Veterans Health Service Medical Center
Yonsei University Hospital
Sagittal
Hip joint angle
1.72
1.43
2.24
Knee joint angle
2.77
2.57
2.71
Ankle joint angle
1.73
2.36
1.53
Frontal
Hip joint angle
3.48
1.57
2.68
Knee joint angle
1.77
2.13
2.28
Ankle joint angle
1.39
1.81
1.65
Transverse
Hip joint angle
3.76
3.62
4.15
Knee joint angle
2.89
3.11
2.95
Ankle joint angle
2.78
3.36
4.37
IMU, inertial measurement unit; RMSE, root mean square error.
Table 3.
Intra-rater reliability of kinematic and spatiotemporal parameters (IMU-based system)
Reliability of kinematic and spatio-temporal parameters (camera-based system, n=1)
Variable
ICC
Kinematic parameters
Hip flexion/extension
0.996
Hip adduction/abduction
0.960
Hip internal/external
0.368
Knee flexion/extension
0.989
Knee varus/valgus
0.810
Knee internal/external
0.609
Ankle dorsi/plantar flexion
0.987
Ankle inversion/eversion
0.688
Ankle internal/external rotation
0.659
Spatio-temporal parameters
Stance phase (%)
0.802
Swing phase (%)
0.802
Velocity (m/s)
0.782
Stride length (m)
0.733
ICC, intraclass correlation coefficient.
REFERENCES
1. Simon SR. Quantification of human motion: gait analysis-benefits and limitations to its application to clinical problems. J Biomech 2004;37:1869-80.
4. Ugbolue UC, Papi E, Kaliarntas KT, Kerr A, Earl L, Pomeroy VM, et al. The evaluation of an inexpensive, 2D, video based gait assessment system for clinical use. Gait Posture 2013;38:483-9.
7. Watanabe T, Saito H, Koike E, Nitta K. A preliminary test of measurement of joint angles and stride length with wireless inertial sensors for wearable gait evaluation system. Comput Intell Neurosci 2011;2011:975193.
9. Cloete T, Scheffer C. Benchmarking of a full-body inertial motion capture system for clinical gait analysis. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 2008;2008:4579-82.
11. Boudarham J, Roche N, Pradon D, Bonnyaud C, Bensmail D, Zory R. Variations in kinematics during clinical gait analysis in stroke patients. PLoS One 2013;8:e66421.
12. Karasawa Y, Teruyama Y, Watanabe T. A trial of making reference gait data for simple gait evaluation system with wireless inertial sensors. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 2013;2013:3427-30.
13. van Acht V, Bongers E, Lambert N, Verberne R. Miniature wireless inertial sensor for measuring human motions. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 2007;2007:6279-82.
14. Luinge HJ, Veltink PH. Measuring orientation of human body segments using miniature gyroscopes and accelerometers. Med Biol Eng Comput 2005;43:273-82.
15. Zhu R, Zhou Z. A real-time articulated human motion tracking using tri-axis inertial/magnetic sensors package. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng 2004;12:295-302.
18. Madgwick S. An efficient orientation filter for inertial and inertial/magnetic sensor arrays [Internet]. Bristol, UK, X-IO Technologies; 2010 [cited 2018 Nov 15]. Available from: http://x-io.co.uk/res/doc/madgwick_internal_report.pdf
19. Alvarez JC, Gonzalez RC, Alvarez D, Lopez AM, Rodriguez-Uria J. Multisensor approach to walking distance estimation with foot inertial sensing. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 2007;2007:5720-3.
20. Dejnabadi H, Jolles BM, Aminian K. A new approach to accurate measurement of uniaxial joint angles based on a combination of accelerometers and gyroscopes. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 2005;52:1478-84.
21. Lau H, Tong K. The reliability of using accelerometer and gyroscope for gait event identification on persons with dropped foot. Gait Posture 2008;27:248-57.
23. Brennan A, Zhang J, Deluzio K, Li Q. Quantification of inertial sensor-based 3D joint angle measurement accuracy using an instrumented gimbal. Gait Posture 2011;34:320-3.
24. Cho JS, Kang SI, Lee KH, Jang SH, Kim IY, Lee JS. Implementation of gait analysis system based on inertial sensors. J Rehabil Welf Eng Assist Technol 2015;9:137-44.
25. Patterson MR, Delahunt E, Sweeney KT, Caulfield B. An ambulatory method of identifying anterior cruciate ligament reconstructed gait patterns. Sensors (Basel) 2014;14:887-99.
26. Greene BR, McGrath D, O’Neill R, O’Donovan KJ, Burns A, Caulfield B. An adaptive gyroscope-based algorithm for temporal gait analysis. Med Biol Eng Comput 2010;48:1251-60.
27. Salarian A, Russmann H, Vingerhoets FJ, Dehollain C, Blanc Y, Burkhard PR, et al. Gait assessment in Parkinson’s disease: toward an ambulatory system for longterm monitoring. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 2004;51:1434-43.
28. Sabatini AM, Martelloni C, Scapellato S, Cavallo F. Assessment of walking features from foot inertial sensing. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 2005;52:486-94.
30. Lee KH, Kang SI, Cho JS, Lim DH, Lee JS, Kim IY. Development of gait distance measurement system based on inertial measurement units. J Rehabil Welf Eng Assist Technol 2015;9:161-8.
31. Zhou H, Hu H. Inertial sensors for motion detection of human upper limbs. Sens Rev 2007;27:151-8.
32. Kim CY, Hong JS, Chun KJ. Validation of feasibility of two depth sensor-based Microsoft Kinect cameras for human abduction-adduction motion analysis. Int J Precis Eng Manuf 2016;17:1209-14.
33. Hamacher D, Hamacher D, Taylor WR, Singh NB, Schega L. Towards clinical application: repetitive sensor position re-calibration for improved reliability of gait parameters. Gait Posture 2014;39:1146-8.
34. Lutzner C, Voigt H, Roeder I, Kirschner S, Lutzner J. Placement makes a difference: accuracy of an accelerometer in measuring step number and stair climbing. Gait Posture 2014;39:1126-32.
36. Bautmans I, Jansen B, Van Keymolen B, Mets T. Reliability and clinical correlates of 3D-accelerometry based gait analysis outcomes according to age and fall-risk. Gait Posture 2011;33:366-72.
Haptic Feedback Increases Plantarflexion and Propulsion Margo C. Donlin Journal of Biomechanical Engineering.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
Immediate effects of ankle–foot orthosis on gait coordination and kinematics in subacute stroke Yeo Joon Yun, Jae Hyeon Park, Min Kyu Jang, Ji Woong Choi, Seong Ho Jang Gait & Posture.2026; 125: 110064. CrossRef
Translating Biomechanics to Clinic: Validating a Spine-Specific Wearable for Remote Functional Assessment Ram Haddas, Kade Kaufmann, Prasanth Romiyo, Ye Shu, Gabriel Ramirez, Paul Rubery, Ashley Rogerson, Varun Puvanesarajah, Willian Lavelle, Addisu Mesfin, Yair Barzilay The Spine Journal.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
Enhancing latent space representation in Adversarial Autoencoders for exercise recognition: A data augmentation perspective using low-cost sensors Vincent Hernandez, Gentiane Venture Smart Health.2026; 40: 100635. CrossRef
Beyond Alignment: Static Coronal Alterations Do Not Predict Dynamic Foot Loading or Spatiotemporal Gait Patterns After Unilateral Total Knee Replacement—A Prospective Study Dimitrios Ntourantonis, Ilias Iliopoulos, Konstantinos Pantazis, Angelos Kaspiris, Zinon Kokkalis, John Gliatis, Elias Panagiotopoulos Bioengineering.2026; 13(2): 134. CrossRef
Test-retest reliability of customised inertial measurement units (IMUs) in evaluating skateboarding related manoeuvres Aina Munirah Ab Rasid, Azlina Musa, Muhammad Amirul Abdullah, Anwar P.P. Abdul Majeed, Mohd Azraai Mohd Razmaan, Mohamad Razali Abdullah, Noor Azuan Abu Osman, Rabiu Muazu Musa Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part P: Journal of Sports Engineering and Technology.2025; 239(2): 179. CrossRef
Classifying walking pattern on different surfaces by optimising features extracted through IMU sensor data using SSA optimisation Preeti Chauhan, Amit Kumar Singh, Naresh K. Raghuwanshi Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Latent Space Representation of Adversarial AutoEncoder for Human Activity Recognition: Application to a low-cost commercial force plate and inertial measurement units Kenta Kamikokuryo, Gentiane Venture, Vincent Hernandez Smart Health.2025; 35: 100537. CrossRef
Comparing Performance and Reliability of Collocated Enhanced Children’s MicroPEM (ECM) on Gravimetric and Nephelometric PM2.5 Personal Exposure Samples in Field Measurements in Rural Guatemala Erick Mollinedo, John P. McCracken, Michael Johnson, Ricardo Piedrahita, Ajay Pillarisetti, Lance A. Waller, Jiantong Wang, Lisa M. Thompson, Anaite Diaz-Artiga, Oscar de Leon, Alexander Ramirez, Alejandro Polanco, Devan Campbell, Katherine A. Kearns, Jac Indoor Air.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
An Advanced Integrated Sensor-Based Method for Fall Risk Assessment in Rehabilitation Setting Manting Chen, Lu Zhang, Lisha Yu, Eric Hiu Kwong Yeung, Qizheng Zhao, Junjie Cao, Xuan Wang, Jiacheng Huang, Hailiang Wang, Yang Zhao IEEE Sensors Journal.2025; 25(8): 13685. CrossRef
Running Step Rate Can Be Increased With Both Metronome and Music Auditory Cueing Erin Lally, Hayley Ericksen, Razia Azen, Wendy Huddleston, Jennifer Earl-Boehm Journal of Sport Rehabilitation.2025; : 1. CrossRef
Validity and Reliability of a Smartphone-Based Gait Assessment in Measuring Temporal Gait Parameters: Challenges and Recommendations Sam Guoshi Liang, Ho Yin Chung, Ka Wing Chu, Yuk Hong Gao, Fong Ying Lau, Wolfe Ixin Lai, Gabriel Ching-Hang Fong, Patrick Wai-Hang Kwong, Freddy Man Hin Lam Biosensors.2025; 15(7): 397. CrossRef
Validation of a Commercially Available IMU-Based System Against an Optoelectronic System for Full-Body Motor Tasks Giacomo Villa, Serena Cerfoglio, Alessandro Bonfiglio, Paolo Capodaglio, Manuela Galli, Veronica Cimolin Sensors.2025; 25(12): 3736. CrossRef
Influence of wearable rhythmic auditory stimulation on Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis, and stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis Sofia Scataglini, Cas Van Bocxlaer, Lynn Jansen, Laura Van Es, Charlotte Van Laerhoven, Steven Truijen Scientific Reports.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Gait Analysis Using an Artificial Intelligence-Based Motion Capture System With a Single Smartphone Camera Takuya Usami, Masaya Kisohara, Kazuki Nishida, Daishiro Koboyashi, Ruido Ida, Kohki Matsubara, Haruhiko Tokuda, Nobuyuki Suzuki, Hideki Murakami, Gen Kuroyanagi Cureus.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
NEST: A Novel Ensemble Method for Estimating Spatio-Temporal Gait Parameters Using Inertial Measurement Units Chih-Chao Hsu, Hsu-Chao Lai, Guan-Yi Jhang, Jiun-Long Huang, Jun-Zhe Wang Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Soft Computing Research.2025; 15(4): 319. CrossRef
Kinesiological Analysis Using Inertial Sensor Systems: Methodological Framework and Clinical Applications in Pathological Gait Danelina Emilova Vacheva, Atanas Kostadinov Drumev Sensors.2025; 25(14): 4435. CrossRef
In-field temporospatial gait retraining adherence improves with music auditory cueing Erin Lally, Hayley Ericksen, Razia Azen, Wendy Huddleston, Jennifer Earl-Boehm Journal of Sports Sciences.2025; 43(23): 2988. CrossRef
Reliability and Validity of Maximum Lower Limb Angle During Countermovement Jump: Comparing 3D Motion Capture with Inertial Measurement Units Chuanpis Boonkerd, Thanawat Kitsuksan, Suteera Jaidee, Teerapat Laddawong Annals of Applied Sport Science.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
The validity and reliability of motion analysis sensor system for wheelchair users (MASSWU) Nirawitt Suansomchit, Supachai Vorapojpisut, Sairag Saadprai, Rodrigo Rodrigues Gomes Costa PLOS One.2025; 20(10): e0333391. CrossRef
Gait classification and trajectory generation for different daily activities using deep learning on an embedded system Mohamed Karakish, Ahmed Elsawaf, Moustafa A. Fouz Discover Applied Sciences.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
The Influence of Rhythmic Auditory Stimulation On Movement Parameters in Individuals Diagnosed With Stroke Using Wearable Devices: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Sofia Scataglini, Lynn Jansen, Laura Van Es, Charlotte Van Laerhoven, Steven Truijen Current Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Reports.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Deep Temporal Clustering of Pathological Gait Recovery Patterns in Post-Stroke Patients Using Joint-Angle Trajectories: A Longitudinal Study Jinwoo Kim, Teh-Hao Teng, Yun-Hee Kim, Seung-Jong Kim, Mun-Taek Choi Bioengineering.2025; 12(12): 1314. CrossRef
Inertial measurement unit sensor-based gait analysis in adults and older adults: A cross-sectional study Dong Hyun Yoon, Jeong-Hyun Kim, Kyuwon Lee, Jae-Sung Cho, Seong-Ho Jang, Shi-Uk Lee Gait & Posture.2024; 107: 212. CrossRef
Center of Mass Estimation for Impaired Gait Assessment Using Inertial Measurement Units Gabrielle C. Labrozzi, Holly Warner, Nathaniel S. Makowski, Musa L. Audu, Ronald J. Triolo IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering.2024; 32: 12. CrossRef
Characterization of Walking in Mild Parkinson’s Disease: Reliability, Validity and Discriminant Ability of the Six-Minute Walk Test Instrumented with a Single Inertial Sensor Gaia Bailo, Francesca Lea Saibene, Virginia Bandini, Pietro Arcuri, Anna Salvatore, Mario Meloni, Anna Castagna, Jorge Navarro, Tiziana Lencioni, Maurizio Ferrarin, Ilaria Carpinella Sensors.2024; 24(2): 662. CrossRef
Obesity-Specific Considerations for Assessing Gait with Inertial Measurement Unit-Based vs. Optokinetic Motion Capture Julie Rekant, Scott Rothenberger, April Chambers Sensors.2024; 24(4): 1232. CrossRef
Human-Prosthetic Interaction (HumanIT): A study protocol for a clinical trial evaluating brain neuroplasticity and functional performance after lower limb loss Elke Lathouwers, Bruno Tassignon, Alexandre Maricot, Ahmed Radwan, Maarten Naeyaert, Hubert Raeymaekers, Peter Van Schuerbeek, Stefan Sunaert, Johan De Mey, Kevin De Pauw, Heike Vallery PLOS ONE.2024; 19(3): e0299869. CrossRef
Classifying the walking pattern of humans on different surfaces using convolutional features and shallow machine learning classifiers Preeti Chauhan, Amit Kumar Singh, Naresh K Raghuwanshi Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part C: Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science.2024; 238(18): 8943. CrossRef
A comprehensive dataset on biomechanics and motor control during human walking with discrete mechanical perturbations Dana L. Lorenz, Antonie J. van den Bogert PeerJ.2024; 12: e17256. CrossRef
Depression risk recognition based on gait: A benchmark Xiaotong Liu, Qiong Li, Saihui Hou, Min Ren, Xuecai Hu, Yongzhen Huang Neurocomputing.2024; 596: 128045. CrossRef
Explainable Deep-Learning-Based Gait Analysis of Hip–Knee Cyclogram for the Prediction of Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis Progression Yong-Gyun Kim, Sungjoon Kim, Jae Hyeon Park, Seung Yang, Minkyu Jang, Yeo Joon Yun, Jae-sung Cho, Sungmin You, Seong-Ho Jang Sensors.2024; 24(14): 4504. CrossRef
Validity of Valor Inertial Measurement Unit for Upper and Lower Extremity Joint Angles Jacob Smith, Dhyey Parikh, Vincent Tate, Safeer Farrukh Siddicky, Hao-Yuan Hsiao Sensors.2024; 24(17): 5833. CrossRef
Validity of wearable sensors for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) rehabilitation: A study in younger and older healthy participants L. Forsyth, A. Ligeti, M. Blyth, J.V. Clarke, P.E. Riches The Knee.2024; 51: 292. CrossRef
Concurrent Validity and Relative Reliability of the RunScribe™ System for the Assessment of Spatiotemporal Gait Parameters During Walking Andrés Ráfales-Perucha, Elisa Bravo-Viñuales, Alejandro Molina-Molina, Antonio Cartón-Llorente, Silvia Cardiel-Sánchez, Luis E. Roche-Seruendo Sensors.2024; 24(23): 7825. CrossRef
Accuracy of Automatically Identifying the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists Threshold Limit Values Twelve Lifting Zones over Three Simplified Zones Using Computer Algorithm Menekse S. Barim, Ming-Lun Lu, Shuo Feng, Marie A. Hayden, Dwight Werren Sensors.2024; 25(1): 111. CrossRef
Comparison of IMU set-ups for the estimation of gait spatio-temporal parameters in an elderly population Elisa Digo, Elisa Panero, Valentina Agostini, Laura Gastaldi Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part H: Journal of Engineering in Medicine.2023; 237(1): 61. CrossRef
Age-Associated Changes on Gait Smoothness in the Third and the Fourth Age Massimiliano Pau, Giuseppina Bernardelli, Bruno Leban, Micaela Porta, Valeria Putzu, Daniela Viale, Gesuina Asoni, Daniela Riccio, Serena Cerfoglio, Manuela Galli, Veronica Cimolin Electronics.2023; 12(3): 637. CrossRef
Validation of 3D Knee Kinematics during Gait on Treadmill with an Instrumented Knee Brace Nicolas Reneaud, Raphaël Zory, Olivier Guérin, Luc Thomas, Serge S. Colson, Pauline Gerus, Frédéric Chorin Sensors.2023; 23(4): 1812. CrossRef
Rehabilitation Outcomes Following Hip Fracture of Home-Based Exercise Interventions Using a Wearable Device—A Randomized Controlled Pilot and Feasibility Study David Flecks Howell, Agneta Malmgren Fänge, Cecilia Rogmark, Eva Ekvall Hansson International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health.2023; 20(4): 3107. CrossRef
Designing Ecological Auditory Feedback on Lower Limb Kinematics for Hemiparetic Gait Training Prithvi Ravi Kantan, Sofia Dahl, Helle Rovsing Jørgensen, Chetali Khadye, Erika G. Spaich Sensors.2023; 23(8): 3964. CrossRef
Title: Hip and lower limbs 3D motion tracking using a double-stage data fusion algorithm for IMU/MARG-based wearables sensors José Antonio Barraza Madrigal, Lauro Armando Contreras Rodríguez, Eladio Cardiel Pérez, Pablo Rogelio Hernández Rodríguez, Humberto Sossa Biomedical Signal Processing and Control.2023; 86: 104938. CrossRef
Waist—What? Can a single sensor positioned at the waist detect parameters of gait at a speed and distance reflective of older adults’ activity? Grainne Vavasour, Oonagh M. Giggins, Matthew W. Flood, Julie Doyle, Emer Doheny, Daniel Kelly, Andrea Dell’Isola PLOS ONE.2023; 18(6): e0286707. CrossRef
Assessment of human gait after total knee arthroplasty by dynamic time warping algorithm Reza Abbasi‐Kesbi, Mohammad Fathi, Mohammad Najafi, Alireza Nikfarjam Healthcare Technology Letters.2023; 10(4): 73. CrossRef
Thoracolumbar and Lumbopelvic Spinal Alignment During the Barbell Back Squat: A Comparison Between Men and Women Victor Bengtsson, Lars Berglund, Fredrik Öhberg, Ulrika Aasa International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy.2023;[Epub] CrossRef
Testing the Validity of a Spatiotemporal Gait Model Using Inertial Measurement Units in Early Parkinson’s Patients Shuai Tao, Haoye Wang, Liwen Kong, Zeping Lv, Zumin Wang IEEE Access.2023; 11: 80573. CrossRef
Effect of sonification types in upper-limb movement: a quantitative and qualitative study in hemiparetic and healthy participants Iseline Peyre, Agnès Roby-Brami, Maël Segalen, Alain Giron, Baptiste Caramiaux, Véronique Marchand-Pauvert, Pascale Pradat-Diehl, Frédéric Bevilacqua Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation.2023;[Epub] CrossRef
Activity Recognition Using Different Sensor Modalities and Deep Learning Gokmen Ascioglu, Yavuz Senol Applied Sciences.2023; 13(19): 10931. CrossRef
Effects of barefoot vs. shod walking during indoor and outdoor conditions in younger and older adults Karsten Hollander, Evi Petersen, Astrid Zech, Daniel Hamacher Gait & Posture.2022; 95: 284. CrossRef
Validation of the Perception Neuron system for full-body motion capture Corliss Zhi Yi Choo, Jia Yi Chow, John Komar, Kei Masani PLOS ONE.2022; 17(1): e0262730. CrossRef
Development of an Area Scan Step Length Measuring System Using a Polynomial Estimate of the Heel Cloud Point Nursyuhada Binti Haji Kadir, Joseph K. Muguro, Kojiro Matsushita, Senanayake Mudiyanselaga Namal Arosha Senanayake, Minoru Sasaki Signals.2022; 3(2): 157. CrossRef
Detection of Human Gait Phases Using Textile Pressure Sensors: A Low Cost and Pervasive Approach Matko Milovic, Gonzalo Farías, Sebastián Fingerhuth, Francisco Pizarro, Gabriel Hermosilla, Daniel Yunge Sensors.2022; 22(8): 2825. CrossRef
Efficacy of electromechanical-assisted gait training on clinical walking function and gait symmetry after brain injury of stroke: a randomized controlled trial Yeon Gyo Nam, Mun Jung Ko, Soo Kyung Bok, Nam-Jong Paik, Chi-Yeon Lim, Jin Won Lee, Bum Sun Kwon Scientific Reports.2022;[Epub] CrossRef
A Review of Motion Capture Systems: Focusing on Clinical Applications and Kinematic Variables Wootaek Lim Physical Therapy Korea.2022; 29(2): 87. CrossRef
Forest terrains influence walking kinematics among indigenous Tsimane of the Bolivian Amazon Nicholas B. Holowka, Thomas S. Kraft, Ian J. Wallace, Michael Gurven, Vivek V. Venkataraman Evolutionary Human Sciences.2022;[Epub] CrossRef
Accuracy and Validity of a Single Inertial Measurement Unit-Based System to Determine Upper Limb Kinematics for Medically Underserved Populations Charmayne Mary Lee Hughes, Bao Tran, Amir Modan, Xiaorong Zhang Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology.2022;[Epub] CrossRef
Inertial Sensor Estimation of Initial and Terminal Contact during In-Field Running Yue Yang, Li Wang, Steven Su, Mark Watsford, Lauren Marie Wood, Rob Duffield Sensors.2022; 22(13): 4812. CrossRef
Validity and Reliability of the Leomo Motion-Tracking Device Based on Inertial Measurement Unit with an Optoelectronic Camera System for Cycling Pedaling Evaluation José Manuel Plaza-Bravo, Manuel Mateo-March, Roberto Sanchis-Sanchis, Pedro Pérez-Soriano, Mikel Zabala, Alberto Encarnación-Martínez International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health.2022; 19(14): 8375. CrossRef
The relationship between spatiotemporal gait parameters and cognitive function in healthy adults: protocol for a cross-sectional study Tatsuya Fukuoka, Shun Irie, Yoshiteru Watanabe, Toshiki Kutsuna, Akiko Abe Pilot and Feasibility Studies.2022;[Epub] CrossRef
Three-Dimensional Lower-Limb Kinematics from Accelerometers and Gyroscopes with Simple and Minimal Functional Calibration Tasks: Validation on Asymptomatic Participants Lena Carcreff, Gabriel Payen, Gautier Grouvel, Fabien Massé, Stéphane Armand Sensors.2022; 22(15): 5657. CrossRef
Gait parameters when walking with or without rollator on different surface characteristics: a pilot study among healthy individuals Eva Ekvall Hansson, Yara Akar, Tingting Liu, Cong Wang, Agneta Malmgren Fänge BMC Research Notes.2022;[Epub] CrossRef
Gait Trajectory Prediction on an Embedded Microcontroller Using Deep Learning Mohamed Karakish, Moustafa A. Fouz, Ahmed ELsawaf Sensors.2022; 22(21): 8441. CrossRef
Evaluating the difference in walk patterns among normal-weight and overweight/obese individuals in real-world surfaces using statistical analysis and deep learning methods with inertial measurement unit data Tasriva Sikandar, Mohammad Fazle Rabbi, Kamarul Hawari Ghazali, Omar Altwijri, Mohammed Almijalli, Nizam Uddin Ahamed Physical and Engineering Sciences in Medicine.2022; 45(4): 1289. CrossRef
Validity of an instrumented knee brace compared to 3D motion navigation: A cadaveric investigation Reneaud Nicolas, Pierre Emma, Zory Raphaël, Chorin Frédéric, Thomas Luc, Chavet Pascale, Coyle Thelma, Truchet Eric, Puech Stephane, Ollivier Matthieu, Chabrand Patrick, Gerus Pauline Measurement.2021; 173: 108590. CrossRef
Reliability and Validity of a Mobile Device for Assessing Head Control Ability Mohammad Nikkhoo, Chi-Chien Niu, Chen-Ju Fu, Meng-Ling Lu, Wen-Chien Chen, Yang-Hua Lin, Chih-Hsiu Cheng Journal of Medical and Biological Engineering.2021; 41(1): 45. CrossRef
IMU-Based Gait Normalcy Index Calculation for Clinical Evaluation of Impaired Gait Lei Wang, Yun Sun, Qingguo Li, Tao Liu, Jingang Yi IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics.2021; 25(1): 3. CrossRef
Effects of vestibular neurectomy and neural compensation on head movements in patients undergoing vestibular schwannoma resection Omid A. Zobeiri, Gavin M. Mischler, Susan A. King, Richard F. Lewis, Kathleen E. Cullen Scientific Reports.2021;[Epub] CrossRef
Effects of knee osteoarthritis severity on inter-joint coordination and gait variability as measured by hip-knee cyclograms Jae Hyeon Park, Hyojin Lee, Jae-sung Cho, Inyoung Kim, Jongshill Lee, Seong Ho Jang Scientific Reports.2021;[Epub] CrossRef
Identification of Patients with Sarcopenia Using Gait Parameters Based on Inertial Sensors Jeong-Kyun Kim, Myung-Nam Bae, Kang Bok Lee, Sang Gi Hong Sensors.2021; 21(5): 1786. CrossRef
Assessing Stability of Crutch Users by Non-Contact Methods Achilles Vairis, Suzana Brown, Maurice Bess, Kyu Hyun Bae, Jonathan Boyack International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health.2021; 18(6): 3001. CrossRef
An Approach to Acquire Path-Following Skills by Industrial Robots From Human Demonstration Angel Rodriguez-Linan, Ismael Lopez-Juarez, Alan Maldonado-Ramirez, Antonio Zalapa-Elias, Luis Torres-Trevino, Jose Luis Navarro-Gonzalez, Pamela Chinas-Sanchez IEEE Access.2021; 9: 82351. CrossRef
Measurement of Ankle Joint Movements Using IMUs during Running Byong Hun Kim, Sung Hyun Hong, In Wook Oh, Yang Woo Lee, In Ho Kee, Sae Yong Lee Sensors.2021; 21(12): 4240. CrossRef
Immediate Effect of Restricted Knee Extension on Ground Reaction Force and Trunk Acceleration during Walking Hiroshi Osaka, Daisuke Fujita, Kenichi Kobara, Tadanobu Suehiro, Jae-Young Lim Rehabilitation Research and Practice.2021; 2021: 1. CrossRef
Investigating the validity of a single tri-axial accelerometer mounted on the head for monitoring the activities of daily living and the timed-up and go test Vahid Abdollah, Tarek N. Dief, John Ralston, Chester Ho, Hossein Rouhani Gait & Posture.2021; 90: 137. CrossRef
Discriminative Mobility Characteristics between Neurotypical Young, Middle-Aged, and Older Adults Using Wireless Inertial Sensors Clayton W. Swanson, Brett W. Fling Sensors.2021; 21(19): 6644. CrossRef
Development of a Lower Limb Finite Element Musculoskeletal Gait Simulation Framework Driven Solely by Inertial Measurement Unit Sensors Sentong Wang, Kazunori Hase, Susumu Ota Biomechanics.2021; 1(3): 293. CrossRef
JTrack: A Digital Biomarker Platform for Remote Monitoring of Daily-Life Behaviour in Health and Disease Mehran Sahandi Far, Michael Stolz, Jona M. Fischer, Simon B. Eickhoff, Juergen Dukart Frontiers in Public Health.2021;[Epub] CrossRef
Analysis of Gait Characteristics Using Hip-Knee Cyclograms in Patients with Hemiplegic Stroke Ho Seok Lee, Hokyoung Ryu, Shi-Uk Lee, Jae-sung Cho, Sungmin You, Jae Hyeon Park, Seong-Ho Jang Sensors.2021; 21(22): 7685. CrossRef
Feasibility Validation on Healthy Adults of a Novel Active Vibrational Sensing Based Ankle Band for Ankle Flexion Angle Estimation Peiqi Kang, Shuo Jiang, Peter B. Shull, Benny Lo IEEE Open Journal of Engineering in Medicine and Biology.2021; 2: 314. CrossRef
Motion quality in rotator cuff tear using an inertial measurement unit: new parameters for dynamic motion assessment Jae-Man Kwak, Tae-Hyun Ha, Yucheng Sun, Erica Kholinne, Kyoung-Hwan Koh, In-Ho Jeon Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery.2020; 29(3): 593. CrossRef
Age-Related Changes in Smoothness of Gait of Healthy Children and Early Adolescents Bruno Leban, Veronica Cimolin, Micaela Porta, Federico Arippa, Giuseppina Pilloni, Manuela Galli, Massimiliano Pau Journal of Motor Behavior.2020; 52(6): 694. CrossRef
Concurrent validity and inter trial reliability of a single inertial measurement unit for spatial-temporal gait parameter analysis in patients with recent total hip or total knee arthroplasty Marco Bravi, Emilio Gallotta, Michelangelo Morrone, Mirella Maselli, Fabio Santacaterina, Rossana Toglia, Calogero Foti, Silvia Sterzi, Federica Bressi, Sandra Miccinilli Gait & Posture.2020; 76: 175. CrossRef
Determining the Most Appropriate Assistive Walking Device Using the Inertial Measurement Unit-Based Gait Analysis System in Disabled Patients Junhee Lee, Chang Hoon Bae, Aeri Jang, Seoyon Yang, Hasuk Bae Annals of Rehabilitation Medicine.2020; 44(1): 48. CrossRef
Accuracy and repeatability of smartphone sensors for measuring shank-to-vertical angle Brandon T Nguyen, Nick A Baicoianu, Darrin B Howell, Keshia M Peters, Katherine M Steele Prosthetics & Orthotics International.2020; 44(3): 172. CrossRef
3D motion tracking of the shoulder joint with respect to the thorax using MARG sensors and data fusion algorithm José Antonio Barraza Madrigal, Jessica Cantillo Negrete, Roberto Muñoz Guerrero, Lauro Armando Contreras Rodríguez, Humberto Sossa Biocybernetics and Biomedical Engineering.2020; 40(3): 1205. CrossRef
Changes in symmetry during gait in adults with Prader-Willi syndrome Veronica Cimolin, Massimiliano Pau, Nicola Cau, Bruno Leban, Micaela Porta, Paolo Capodaglio, Alessandro Sartorio, Graziano Grugni, Manuela Galli Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering.2020; 23(14): 1094. CrossRef
Kinematics and temporospatial parameters during gait from inertial motion capture in adults with and without HIV: a validity and reliability study Karina Berner, John Cockcroft, Quinette Louw BioMedical Engineering OnLine.2020;[Epub] CrossRef
Quantitative Modeling of Spasticity for Clinical Assessment, Treatment and Rehabilitation Yesung Cha, Arash Arami Sensors.2020; 20(18): 5046. CrossRef
Inertial Sensors as a Tool for Diagnosing Discopathy Lumbosacral Pathologic Gait: A Preliminary Research Sebastian Glowinski, Karol Łosiński, Przemysław Kowiański, Monika Waśkow, Aleksandra Bryndal, Agnieszka Grochulska Diagnostics.2020; 10(6): 342. CrossRef
Estimating Walking Speed in the Wild Loubna Baroudi, Mark W. Newman, Elizabeth A. Jackson, Kira Barton, K. Alex Shorter, Stephen M. Cain Frontiers in Sports and Active Living.2020;[Epub] CrossRef
Novel Method of Classification in Knee Osteoarthritis: Machine Learning Application Versus Logistic Regression Model Jung Ho Yang, Jae Hyeon Park, Seong-Ho Jang, Jaesung Cho Annals of Rehabilitation Medicine.2020; 44(6): 415. CrossRef
Validity of Measurement for Trailing Limb Angle and Propulsion Force during Gait Using a Magnetic Inertial Measurement Unit Takasuke Miyazaki, Masayuki Kawada, Yuki Nakai, Ryoji Kiyama, Kazunori Yone BioMed Research International.2019; 2019: 1. CrossRef
Evaluation of Validity and Reliability of Inertial Measurement Unit-Based Gait Analysis Systems
Fig. 1. A subject has inertial measurement units on both dorsa of the feet, shafts of the tibias, middles of the femurs, and the lower abdomen in the room where the camera-based system is installed.
Fig. 2. The inertial measurement unit sensor is placed on a holder so as to increase stability and accuracy.
Fig. 3. The angle of rotation of the foot was used to determine the gait event through a gyroscope on the foot.
Fig. 4. A two-phase cumulative error reduction algorithm is used to minimize the accumulated error of the double integration, which was calculated using the acceleration values and the angular velocity from the attitude and heading reference system (AHRS) modules.
Fig. 5. A conceptual map presents the segmental joint angle calculation method in the knee joint as an example. The same algorithm can be applied to other segmental joint angles. AHRS, attitude and heading reference system; TA, tibia anatomical; TM, tibia measurement; FA, femur anatomical; FM, femur measurement.
Fig. 1.
Fig. 2.
Fig. 3.
Fig. 4.
Fig. 5.
Evaluation of Validity and Reliability of Inertial Measurement Unit-Based Gait Analysis Systems
Velocity (m/s)
Stride length (m)
Stance phase (%)
Swing phase (%)
National Rehabilitation Center
IMU
1.22±0.06
1.26±0.09
58±2.0
42±1.0
Camera-based system
1.30±0.08
1.21±0.10
63±1.0
37±2.0
Veterans Health Service Medical Center
IMU
1.19±0.05
1.25±0.03
58±2.0
42±2.0
Camera-based system
1.24±0.10
1.29±0.07
61±2.0
39±1.0
Yonsei University Hospital
IMU
1.18±0.08
1.19±0.12
57±3.0
43±2.0
Camera-based system
1.23±0.11
1.24±0.03
61±1.0
39±1.0
RMSE
National Rehabilitation Center
Veterans Health Service Medical Center
Yonsei University Hospital
Sagittal
Hip joint angle
1.72
1.43
2.24
Knee joint angle
2.77
2.57
2.71
Ankle joint angle
1.73
2.36
1.53
Frontal
Hip joint angle
3.48
1.57
2.68
Knee joint angle
1.77
2.13
2.28
Ankle joint angle
1.39
1.81
1.65
Transverse
Hip joint angle
3.76
3.62
4.15
Knee joint angle
2.89
3.11
2.95
Ankle joint angle
2.78
3.36
4.37
Variable
ICC
Kinematic parameters
Hip flexion/extension
0.998
Hip adduction/abduction
0.988
Hip internal/external
0.980
Knee flexion/extension
0.998
Knee varus/valgus
0.884
Knee internal/external
0.946
Ankle dorsi/plantar flexion
0.967
Ankle inversion/eversion
0.912
Ankle internal/external rotation
0.953
Spatio-temporal parameters
Stance phase (%)
0.894
Swing phase (%)
0.894
Velocity (m/s)
0.869
Stride length (m)
0.830
Variable
ICC
Kinematic parameters
Hip flexion/extension
0.995
Hip adduction/abduction
0.963
Hip internal/external
0.988
Knee flexion/extension
0.999
Knee varus/valgus
0.864
Knee internal/external
0.954
Ankle dorsi/plantar flexion
0.938
Ankle inversion/eversion
0.914
Ankle internal/external rotation
0.942
Spatio-temporal parameters
Stance phase (%)
0.883
Swing phase (%)
0.883
Velocity (m/s)
0.882
Stride length (m)
0.800
Variable
ICC
Kinematic parameters
Hip flexion/extension
0.996
Hip adduction/abduction
0.960
Hip internal/external
0.368
Knee flexion/extension
0.989
Knee varus/valgus
0.810
Knee internal/external
0.609
Ankle dorsi/plantar flexion
0.987
Ankle inversion/eversion
0.688
Ankle internal/external rotation
0.659
Spatio-temporal parameters
Stance phase (%)
0.802
Swing phase (%)
0.802
Velocity (m/s)
0.782
Stride length (m)
0.733
Table 1. Temporal and spatial parameters of the camera- and IMU-based systems obtained from the three separate hospitals
Values are presented as mean±standard deviation.
IMU, inertial measurement unit.
Table 2. Kinematic parameters for the camera- and IMU-based systems obtained from the three hospitals
IMU, inertial measurement unit; RMSE, root mean square error.
Table 3. Intra-rater reliability of kinematic and spatiotemporal parameters (IMU-based system)
, Seong-Ho Jang, MD, PhD1
