Cited by 67Balance, Gait, and Falls PreventionGait Recognition and AnalysisLower Extremity Biomechanics and Pathologies

Validity and inter-rater reliability of inertial gait measurements in Parkinson's disease: A pilot study

Esser, Patrick, Dawes, Helen, Collett, Johnny, Feltham, Max G., Howells, Ken·2012·Journal of Neuroscience Methods

Abstract

Walking models driven by centre of mass (CoM) data obtained from inertial measurement units (IMU) or optical motion capture systems (OMCS) can be used to objectively measure gait. However current models have only been validated within typical developed adults (TDA). The purpose of this study was to compare the projected CoM movement within Parkinson's disease (PD) measured by an IMU with data collected from an OMCS after which spatio-temporal gait measures were derived using an inverted pendulum model. The inter-rater reliability of spatio-temporal parameters was explored between expert researchers and clinicians using the IMU processed data. Participants walked 10 m with an IMU attached over their centre of mass which was simultaneously recorded by an OMCS. Data was collected on two occasions, each by an expert researcher and clinician. Ten people with PD showed no difference (p=0.13) for vertical, translatory acceleration, velocity and relative position of the projected centre of mass between IMU and OMCS data. Furthermore no difference (p=0.18) was found for the derived step time, stride length and walking speed for people with PD. Measurements of step time (p=0.299), stride length (p=0.883) and walking speed (p=0.751) did not differ between experts and clinicians. There was good inter-rater reliability for these parameters (ICC3.1=0.979, ICC3.1=0.958 and ICC3.1=0.978, respectively). The findings are encouraging and support the use of IMUs by clinicians to measure CoM movement in people with PD.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2012.01.005

Cites

48 of 48 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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

Authors
Esser, P., Dawes, H., Collett, J., Feltham, M. G., & Howells, K.
Affiliations
Oxford Brookes University (GB)
Corresponding author
Esser, Patrick
Venue
Journal of Neuroscience Methods
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-03
Volume
205
Issue
1
Pages
177-181
ISSN
0165-0270 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2085216068
Cited by
67
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 1
FWCI
9.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Neuroscience Methods (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • World Health Organization
  • Oxford Brookes University
  • Wellcome Trust (089069)
  • University of Oxford
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Balance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Gait Recognition and Analysis
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Lower Extremity Biomechanics and Pathologies
Keywords
Parkinson's disease, inertial measurement unit, gait analysis, optical motion capture, inter-rater reliability, spatiotemporal gait parameters, inverted pendulum model, step time, stride length, walking speed, clinical gait analysis
MeSH terms
Acceleration, Adult, Aged, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Female, Gait, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Models, Neurological, Movement, Parkinson Disease, Reproducibility of Results, Observer Variation, Walking, Gait Disorders, Neurologic

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