Cited by 41Stroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryContext-Aware Activity Recognition SystemsMotor Control and Adaptation

A new way of assessing arm function in activity using kinematic Exposure Variation Analysis and portable inertial sensors—A validity study

Ertzgaard, Per, Öhberg, Fredrik, Gerdle, Björn, Grip, Helena·2016·Manual Therapy

Abstract

Portable motion systems based on inertial motion sensors are promising methods, with the advantage compared to optoelectronic cameras of not being confined to a laboratory setting. A challenge is to develop relevant outcome measures for clinical use. The aim of this study was to characterize elbow and shoulder motion during functional tasks, using portable motion sensors and a modified Exposure Variation Analysis (EVA) and evaluate system accuracy with optoelectronic cameras. Ten healthy volunteers and one participant with sequel after stroke performed standardised functional arm tasks. Motion was registered simultaneously with a custom developed motion sensor system, including gyroscopes and accelerometers, and an optoelectronic camera system. The EVA was applied on elbow and shoulder joints, and angular and angular velocity EVA plots was calculated. The EVA showed characteristic patterns for each arm task in the healthy controls and a distinct difference between the affected and unaffected arm in the participant with sequel after stroke. The accuracy of the portable system was high with a systematic error ranging between -1.2° and 2.0°. The error was direction specific due to a drift component along the gravity vector. Portable motion sensor systems have high potential as clinical tools for evaluation of arm function. EVA effectively illustrates joint angle and joint angle velocity patterns that may capture deficiencies in arm function and movement quality. Next step will be to manage system drift by including magnetometers, to further develop clinically relevant outcome variables and apply this for relevant patient groups.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.math.2015.09.004

Cites

37 of 37 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?

  • Shoulder heterogeneity of results (RMSE 0.2-64.5° and r 0.69-1.00) and movements made it difficult to conclude validity.

    “Despite a larger number of studies published for this joint, heterogeneity of results (RMSE between 0.2 and 64.5° and r from 0.69 to 1.00) and movements performed made it difficult to conclude the validity of using M/IMU systems for movement at this joint [31,32,33,34,35,37,38,39,42,43,44,45].”
  • Elbow RMSE and correlation coefficient results ranged from 0.2 to 30.6° and 0.68 to 0.99, showing good to excellent validity.

    “RMSE and correlation coefficient results range from 0.2 to 30.6° and 0.68 to 0.99, respectively, showing good to excellent validity [28,31,32,33,34,35,37,39,43,45].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ertzgaard, P., Öhberg, F., Gerdle, B., & Grip, H.
Affiliations
  • Linköping University (SE)
  • Centre for Biomedical Engineering and Physics (SE)
Corresponding author
Ertzgaard, Per
Venue
Manual Therapy
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-02
Volume
21
Pages
241-249
ISSN
1356-689X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1922411293
Cited by
41
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 2
FWCI
3.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Manual Therapy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Stroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Context-Aware Activity Recognition Systems
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Motor Control and Adaptation
Keywords
shoulder joint motion, gyroscope drift, outcome measures, movement quality
MeSH terms
Adult, Biomechanical Phenomena, Elbow Joint, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Movement, Shoulder Joint, Range of Motion, Articular, Monitoring, Ambulatory

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