Cited by 97Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationErgonomics and Musculoskeletal DisordersMotor Control and Adaptation

Concurrent validity and reliability of a novel wireless inertial measurement system to assess trunk movement

Open access
Bauer, C.M., Rast, F.M., Ernst, M.J., Kool, J., Oetiker, S., Rissanen, S.M., Suni, J.H., Kankaanpää, M.·2015·Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology

Abstract

INTRODUCTION Assessment of movement dysfunctions commonly comprises trunk range of motion (ROM), movement or control impairment (MCI), repetitive movements (RM), and reposition error (RE). Inertial measurement unit (IMU)-systems could be used to quantify these movement dysfunctions in clinical settings. The aim of this study was to evaluate a novel IMU-system when assessing movement dysfunctions in terms of concurrent validity and reliability. METHODS The concurrent validity of the IMU-system was tested against an optoelectronic system with 22 participants. The reliability of 14 movement dysfunction tests were analysed using generalizability theory and coefficient of variation, measuring 24 participants in seven trials on two days. RESULTS The IMU-system provided valid estimates of trunk movement in the primary movement direction when compared to the optoelectronic system. Reliability varied across tests and variables. On average, ROM and RM were more reliable, compared to MCI and RE tests. DISCUSSION When compared to the optoelectronic system, the IMU-system is valid for estimates of trunk movement in the primary movement direction. Four ROM, two MCI, one RM, and one RE test were identified as reliable and should be studied further for inter-subject comparisons and monitoring changes after an intervention.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jelekin.2015.06.001

Cites

39 of 39 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?

  • Trunk reliability results are consistent and demonstrate good to excellent intra-rater reliability (ICC ≥0.8 except coronal plane fair to excellent 0.67 to 0.93).

    “Results from these three studies are consistent and demonstrate good to excellent intra-rater reliability (ICC ≥ 0.8 except for coronal plane which is fair to excellent (0.67 to 0.93)) [46,66,68].”
  • Hip intra-rater reliability is fair to excellent and inter-rater reliability varied across movements (good for walking ICC 0.4 to 0.74 and poor for jumping ICC ≤0.39).

    “Intra-rater reliability is fair to excellent and inter-rater reliability varied across movements performed (good for walking [ICC of 0.4 to 0.74] and poor for jumping [ICC ≤ 0.39] [46,53,66]).”
  • Errors reported for camera-based motion capture systems varied across movement planes and joints, similar to M/IMUs.

    “Interestingly, and similar to M/IMUs, errors reported for camera-based motion capture systems varied across movement planes and joints.”
  • Several studies have questioned the validity and accuracy of camera-based motion capture systems for certain joints and for complex movements.

    “It is important to note here that, recently, several studies have questioned the validity and accuracy of camera-based motion capture systems for certain joints and for complex movements [46,54].”
  • Errors ranging from 5 to 10° when compared to goniometer, inclinometer, and radiostereometric measurements have been evidenced for camera-based motion capture systems, the same error range as M/IMU systems.

    “Indeed, errors ranging from 5 to 10° when compared to goniometer, inclinometer, and radiostereometric measurements have been evidenced (same error range as M/IMU systems).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bauer, C. M., Rast, F. M., Ernst, M. J., Kool, J., Oetiker, S., Rissanen, S. M., Suni, J. H., & Kankaanpää, M.
Affiliations
  • University of Tampere (FI)
  • ZHAW Zurich University of Applied Sciences (CH)
  • University of Eastern Finland (FI)
  • Urho Kaleva Kekkonen Institute (FI)
Corresponding author
Bauer, C.M.
Venue
Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-10
Volume
25
Issue
5
Pages
782-790
ISSN
1050-6411 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1810429939
Cited by
97
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 2
FWCI
5.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Zürcher Hochschule für Angewandte Wissenschaften digital collection (Zurich University of Applied Sciences) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • ZHAW Digital Collection
Funders
Swiss Commission of Technical Innovation
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Ergonomics and Musculoskeletal Disorders
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Motor Control and Adaptation
Keywords
inertial measurement unit, trunk movement, concurrent validity, test-retest reliability, range of motion, repetitive movements, optical motion capture, generalizability theory
MeSH terms
Adult, Female, Humans, Male, Movement, Myography, Muscle, Skeletal, Wireless Technology, Torso

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