Cited by 16Lower Extremity Biomechanics and PathologiesInertial Sensor and NavigationSports Dynamics and Biomechanics

Portable Inertial Motion Unit for Continuous Assessment of In-shoe Foot Movement

Open access
Mifsud, Nicolai L., Kristensen, Nils H., Villumsen, Morten, Hansen, John, Kersting, Uwe G.·2014·Procedia Engineering

Abstract

The validity and reliability of a new prototype (PT) to measure tibio-calcaneal eversion/inversion, internal/external rotation, and plantar/dorsiflexion angle during running were investigated. Design. Test-retest measurements by a 3D accelerometer and gyroscope inertial motion unit (IMU) were compared to a motion capture (MC) based system both capturing in-shoe rearfoot and tibia kinematics. Background. Laboratory running tests may not reflect movement characteristics experienced during outdoor training. Lower extremity running kinematics have not been obtained by 3D IMU measurement within the shoe previously. Methods. 3D motion of two IMUs attached to the tibia and calcaneus, as well as retroreflective markers through windows in the running shoes, were determined during running. Intersegmental motion was extracted by a complementary filter fusing accelerometer data with integrated gyroscope angular velocity. PT measurements for motion along main anatomical axes were similar to MC derived curves based on coefficients of multiple correlation. Intraclass correlation correlations (ICC) showed a low correlation between PT and MC in three out of four parameters, but high repeatability for PT between test and retest measures. PT underestimated angular motion with a root mean square error (RMSe) of 182.5°/s and bias of 176.3°/s. Eversion was underestimated by PT with RMSe of 6.3°. The PT method was found inadequate to determine valid tibio-calcaneal motion while it was reliable for repeated tests and may allow for intra-subject comparisons of different footwear or inserts.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.proeng.2014.06.035

Cites

16 of 16 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Ankle intra- and inter-rater reliability varied across movement complexity (better for walking ICC 0.6 to 0.95 than jumping ICC 0.39 to 0.99 or playing soccer ICC 0.28 to 0.79).

    “Intra- and inter-rater reliability varied across movements complexity (better for walking [ICC of 0.6 to 0.95] than jumping [ICC of 0.39 to 0.99] or playing soccer [ICC of 0.28 to 0.79] [29,53,62]).”
  • Ecological tasks related to activities of daily living generally require complex movements, the use of both upper and lower limb joints, movements in more than one plane, and irregular movement speed, which all drastically affect M/IMU system performance.

    “Indeed, ecological tasks related to activities of daily living generally require complex movements, the use of both upper and lower limb joints, movements in more than one plane, and irregular movement speed, which all drastically affect system performance (e.g., walking at different speed vs. running [62,63]).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mifsud, N. L., Kristensen, N. H., Villumsen, M., Hansen, J., & Kersting, U. G.
Affiliations
Aalborg University (DK)
Corresponding author
Kersting, Uwe G.
Venue
Procedia Engineering
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014
Volume
72
Pages
208-213
ISSN
1877-7058 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1994561567
Cited by
16
References
16
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1
FWCI
1.29
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Procedia Engineering (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • VBN Forskningsportal (Aalborg Universitet) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Lower Extremity Biomechanics and Pathologies
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Aerospace Engineering › Inertial Sensor and Navigation
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Sports Dynamics and Biomechanics
Keywords
inertial motion units, running kinematics, complementary filter, motion capture comparison, test-retest reliability, wearable sensors

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