Cited by 334Ergonomics and Musculoskeletal DisordersInertial Sensor and NavigationContext-Aware Activity Recognition Systems

Validation of inertial measurement units with an optoelectronic system for whole-body motion analysis

Open access
Robert-Lachaine, Xavier, Mecheri, Hakim, Larue, Christian, Plamondon, André·2017·Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing

Abstract

The potential of inertial measurement units (IMUs) for ergonomics applications appears promising. However, previous IMUs validation studies have been incomplete regarding aspects of joints analysed, complexity of movements and duration of trials. The objective was to determine the technological error and biomechanical model differences between IMUs and an optoelectronic system and evaluate the effect of task complexity and duration. Whole-body kinematics from 12 participants was recorded simultaneously with a full-body Xsens system where an Optotrak cluster was fixed on every IMU. Short functional movements and long manual material handling tasks were performed and joint angles were compared between the two systems. The differences attributed to the biomechanical model showed significantly greater (P ≤ .001) RMSE than the technological error. RMSE was systematically higher (P ≤ .001) for the long complex task with a mean on all joints of 2.8° compared to 1.2° during short functional movements. Definition of local coordinate systems based on anatomical landmarks or single posture was the most influent difference between the two systems. Additionally, IMUs accuracy was affected by the complexity and duration of the tasks. Nevertheless, technological error remained under 5° RMSE during handling tasks, which shows potential to track workers during their daily labour.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11517-016-1537-2

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Robert-Lachaine, X., Mecheri, H., Larue, C., & Plamondon, A.
Affiliations
Institut de recherche Robert-Sauvé en santé et en sécurité du travail (CA)
Venue
Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing
Published
2016-07-05
Volume
55
Issue
4
Pages
609-619
ISSN
  • 0140-0118 (ISSN-L)
  • 1741-0444
OpenAlex
W2460830751
Cited by
329
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 27 · 2025: 39 · 2024: 29 · 2023: 35 · 2022: 42 · 2021: 46 · 2020: 43 · 2019: 29 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 16
FWCI
35.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PhareSST (submittedVersion)
Funders
IRSST (2012-0040, Postdoctoral program)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Ergonomics and Musculoskeletal Disorders
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Aerospace Engineering › Inertial Sensor and Navigation
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Context-Aware Activity Recognition Systems
Keywords
inertial measurement unit, optical motion capture, whole-body kinematics, technological errors, joint angles, task complexity, task duration, manual material handling, functional movement, local coordinate system, anatomical landmarks, Xsens, human factors, worker tracking
MeSH terms
Adult, Biomechanical Phenomena, Female, Humans, Male, Models, Theoretical, Monitoring, Physiologic, Motion, Movement, Posture, Optics and Photonics

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review