access icon openaccess Reliability of the step phase detection using inertial measurement units: pilot study

The use of inertial sensors for the gait event detection during a long-distance walking, for example, on different surfaces and with different walking patterns, is important to evaluate the human locomotion. Previous studies demonstrated that gyroscopes on the shank or foot are more reliable than accelerometers and magnetometers for the event detection in case of normal walking. However, these studies did not link the events with the temporal parameters used in the clinical practice; furthermore, they did not clearly verify the optimal position for the sensors depending on walking patterns and surface conditions. The event detection quality of the sensors is compared with video, used as ground truth, according to the parameters proposed by the Gait and Clinical Movement Analysis Society. Additionally, the performance of the sensor on the foot is compared with the one on the shank. The comparison is performed considering both normal walking and deviations to the walking pattern, on different ground surfaces and with or without constraints on movements. The preliminary results show that the proposed methodology allows reliable detection of gait events, even in case of abnormal footfall and in slipping surface conditions, and that the optimal location to place the sensors is the shank.

Inspec keywords: inertial systems; gait analysis; sensor placement; reliability

Other keywords: inertial measurement units; gait event detection; reliability; slipping surface condition; human locomotion; abnormal footfall condition; inertial sensors; long-distance walking; step phase detection

Subjects: Optimisation techniques; Biomedical engineering; Sensing devices and transducers; Physics of body movements; Wireless sensor networks; Biomedical measurement and imaging; Reliability

References

    1. 1)
    2. 2)
    3. 3)
    4. 4)
    5. 5)
      • 7. ‘Motion capture – Mocap – qualisys motion capture systems’, Available at: http://www.qualisys.com/, Accessed: 20 August 2014.
    6. 6)
      • 4. Cerny, K.: ‘A clinical method of quantitative gait analysis suggestion from the field’, Phys. Ther., 1983, 63, (7), pp. 11251126.
    7. 7)
    8. 8)
      • 3. Robinson, J.L., Smidt, G.L.: ‘Quantitative gait evaluation in the clinic’, Phys. Ther., 1981, 61, (3), pp. 351353.
    9. 9)
    10. 10)
    11. 11)
      • 6. Vicon Systems’, 2009, Available at: http://www.vivometrics.com/.
    12. 12)
    13. 13)
    14. 14)
    15. 15)
      • 5. Oberg, T., Karsznia, A., Oberg, K.: ‘Basic gait parameters: reference data for normal subjects, 10–79 years of age’, J. Rehabil. Res. Dev., 1993, 30, (2), pp. 210223.
    16. 16)
      • 21. Kawamura, K., Morita, Y., Okamoto, J., et al: ‘Gait phase detection using foot acceleration for estimating ground reaction force in long distance gait rehabilitation’, J. Robot. Mechatron., 2012, 24, (5), pp. 828837.
    17. 17)
      • 8. Jimenez, A.R., Seco, F., Prieto, C., Guevara, J.: ‘A comparison of Pedestrian Dead-Reckoning algorithms using a low-cost MEMS IMU’. IEEE Int. Symp. on Intelligent Signal Processing, WISP 2009, Budapest, Hungary, August 2009, pp. 3742.
    18. 18)
    19. 19)
    20. 20)
    21. 21)
    22. 22)
http://iet.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1049/htl.2014.0103
Loading

Related content

content/journals/10.1049/htl.2014.0103
pub_keyword,iet_inspecKeyword,pub_concept
6
6
Loading