Validity of an inertial measurement unit to assess pelvic orientation angles during gait, sit–stand transfers and step-up transfers: Comparison with an optoelectronic motion capture system *
Open accessAbstract
An inertial measurement unit (IMU) allows kinematic evaluation of human motion with fewer operational constraints than a gold standard optoelectronic motion capture (MOCAP) system. The study's aim was to compare IMU and MOCAP measurements of dynamic pelvic orientation angles during different activities of daily life (ADL): gait, sit-to-stand (STS) transfers and block step-up (BS) transfers. A single IMU was attached onto the lower back in seventeen healthy participants (8F/9 M, age 19-31 years; BMI < 25) and optical skin markers were attached onto anatomical pelvic landmarks for MOCAP measurements. Comparisons between IMU and MOCAP by Bland-Altman plots demonstrated that measurements were between 2SD of the absolute difference and Pearson's correlation coefficients were between 0.85 and 0.94. Frontal plane pelvic angle estimations achieved a RMSE in the range of [2.7°-4.5°] and sagittal plane measurements achieved a RMSE in the range of [2.7°-8.9°] which were both lowest in gait. Waveform peak detection times demonstrated ICCs between 0.96 and 1.00. These results are in accordance to other studies comparing IMU and MOCAP measurements with different applications and suggest that an IMU is a valid tool to measure dynamic pelvic angles during various activities of daily life which could be applied to monitor rehabilitation in a wide variety of musculoskeletal disorders.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
Portable IMUs compared against optoelectronic systems show ICCs of 0.85-0.94 and SEMs between 2.7 and 8.9° in the assessment of pelvic orientation during functional activities.
“portable inertial measurement units (IMUs) compared against optoelectronic systems, showing ICCs of 0.85–0.94 and SEMs between 2.7 and 8.9° in the assessment of pelvic orientation during functional activities [52,53,54].”
From Intra-Rater and Test–Retest Reliability of Kinovea for the Kinematic Analysis of Squatting in Healthy Active Women (2026) · cites this paper as [54]
The Discussion and Table 1 report an IMU–optoelectronic comparison of pelvic motion during gait and transfers, with values matching the quoted ranges. But 0.85–0.94 are Pearson correlation coefficients, not ICCs, and 2.7–8.9° are RMSEs, not SEMs; Table 1 reports ICCs of 0.96–1.00. (LLM, conf=0.92)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 46 · Cited by 147
- Authors
- Bolink, S. A. A. N., Naisas, H., Senden, R., Essers, H., Heyligers, I. C., Meijer, K., & Grimm, B.
- Affiliations
- Atrium Medisch Centrum Parkstad (NL)
- Maastricht University (NL)
- Corresponding author
- Bolink, S.A.A.N.
- Venue
- Medical Engineering & Physics
- Publisher
- IOP Publishing
- Published
- 2015-12-19
- Volume
- 38
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 225-231
- ISSN
- 1350-4533 (ISSN-L)
- 1873-4030
- OpenAlex
- W2212926257
- Cited by
- 147
- References
- 46
- Citations by year
- 2026: 10 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 3
- FWCI
- 3.15
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Medical Engineering & Physics (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Research Publications (Maastricht University) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Lower Extremity Biomechanics and Pathologies
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Context-Aware Activity Recognition Systems
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Gait Recognition and Analysis
- Keywords
- inertial measurement unit, optical motion capture, gait, sit-to-stand, activities of daily living, measurement validity, low back, rehabilitation monitoring, musculoskeletal disorders
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Biomechanical Phenomena, Female, Gait, Humans, Light, Male, Pelvis, Posture, Mechanical Phenomena, Electrical Equipment and Supplies, Young Adult
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
