Cited by 369Context-Aware Activity Recognition SystemsInertial Sensor and NavigationLower Extremity Biomechanics and Pathologies

The use of inertial sensors system for human motion analysis

Open access
Cuesta-Vargas, Antonio I, Galán-Mercant, Alejandro, Williams, Jonathan M·2010·Physical Therapy Reviews

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this article is to review systematically and appraise critically the literature surrounding the research, comparing inertial sensors with any kind of gold standard; this gold standard has to be a tool for measuring human movement (e.g. electrogoniometry, optoelectronic systems, electromagnetic systems, etc.). METHOD: A MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDRo and SCOPUS search of published English language articles was conducted, which focused on articles that compared inertial sensors to any kind of gold standard (e.g. electrogoniometry, optoelectronic systems, electromagnetic systems, etc.), from 2000 to 2010. Two independent reviewers completed the study selection, quality appraisal and data extraction. The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme Español tool was used to assess study quality, and a reliability comparison between the systems was made. RESULTS: Fourteen out of 242 articles were reviewed, which displayed a similar threat to validity, relating to sample selection and operator blinding. Other study limitations are discussed. A comparison between the different systems showed good agreement across a range of tasks and anatomical regions. CONCLUSIONS: This review concludes that inertial sensors can offer an accurate and reliable method to study human motion, but the degree of accuracy and reliability is site and task specific.

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 · 10.1179/1743288x11y.0000000006

Cites

41 of 41 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?

  • Two systematic reviews have been conducted on the psychometric evidence relating to M/IMU validity.

    “Two systematic reviews have been conducted to report on the psychometric evidence relating to M/IMU validity [11,12].”
  • The other systematic review published in 2018 focused only on the upper limb and provided scarce details regarding task complexity.

    “The other systematic review, published in 2018, focused only on the upper limb and provided only scarce details regarding the complexity of the tasks evaluated, a problem highlighted by the first systematic review as being one of the most challenging aspects for clinical evaluation.”
  • The present review's results are opposite to the previous systematic review's finding that upper limb joints had better results than lower limb joints.

    “This is opposite to our results.”
  • The increasing number of studies in recent years that used complex movements to assess M/IMU validity and the focus on the upper limb joint partially explain the different conclusions between the two previous systematic reviews and the present work.

    “The increasing number of studies in recent years that used complex movements to assess M/IMU validity and the focus made on the upper limb joint partially explain the different conclusions between these two systematic reviews and the present work [12].”

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
Cuesta-Vargas, A. I., Galán-Mercant, A., & Williams, J. M.
Affiliations
  • Universidad de Málaga (ES)
  • University of Roehampton (GB)
Venue
Physical Therapy Reviews
Published
2010-12
Volume
15
Issue
6
Pages
462-473
ISSN
  • 1083-3196 (ISSN-L)
  • 1743-288X
OpenAlex
W1994978432
Cited by
369
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 33 · 2023: 30 · 2022: 33 · 2021: 47 · 2020: 39 · 2019: 35 · 2018: 33 · 2017: 29 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 2
FWCI
2.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Physical Therapy Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • QUT ePrints (Queensland University of Technology) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Context-Aware Activity Recognition Systems
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Aerospace Engineering › Inertial Sensor and Navigation
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Lower Extremity Biomechanics and Pathologies
Keywords
inertial sensors, human motion analysis, gold standard comparison, electrogoniometry, optical motion capture, measurement validity, gait analysis

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