Cited by 54Gait Recognition and AnalysisLower Extremity Biomechanics and PathologiesBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention

Estimation of pelvis kinematics in level walking based on a single inertial sensor positioned close to the sacrum: Validation on healthy subjects with stereophotogrammetric system

Open access
Buganè, Francesca, Benedetti, Maria, D’Angeli, Valentina, Leardini, Alberto·2014·BioMedical Engineering OnLine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Kinematics measures from inertial sensors have a value in the clinical assessment of pathological gait, to track quantitatively the outcome of interventions and rehabilitation programs. To become a standard tool for clinicians, it is necessary to evaluate their capability to provide reliable and comprehensible information, possibly by comparing this with that provided by the traditional gait analysis. The aim of this study was to assess by state-of-the-art gait analysis the reliability of a single inertial device attached to the sacrum to measure pelvis kinematics during level walking. METHODS: The output signals of the three-axis gyroscope were processed to estimate the spatial orientation of the pelvis in the sagittal (tilt angle), frontal (obliquity) and transverse (rotation) anatomical planes These estimated angles were compared with those provided by a 8 TV-cameras stereophotogrammetric system utilizing a standard experimental protocol, with four markers on the pelvis. This was observed in a group of sixteen healthy subjects while performing three repetitions of level walking along a 10 meter walkway at slow, normal and fast speeds. The determination coefficient, the scale factor and the bias of a linear regression model were calculated to represent the differences between the angular patterns from the two measurement systems. For the intra-subject variability, one volunteer was asked to repeat walking at normal speed 10 times. RESULTS: A good match was observed for obliquity and rotation angles. For the tilt angle, the pattern and range of motion was similar, but a bias was observed, due to the different initial inclination angle in the sagittal plane of the inertial sensor with respect to the pelvis anatomical frame. A good intra-subject consistency has also been shown by the small variability of the pelvic angles as estimated by the new system, confirmed by very small values of standard deviation for all three angles. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that this inertial device is a reliable alternative to stereophotogrammetric systems for pelvis kinematics measurements, in addition to being easier to use and cheaper. The device can provide to the patient and to the examiner reliable feedback in real-time during routine clinical tests.

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 · 10.1186/1475-925x-13-146

Cites

33 of 33 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?

  • 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 [53]

    The Abstract Methods section reports comparing a sacrum-mounted inertial sensor with a stereophotogrammetric system during level walking in healthy subjects. The Methods Statistical analysis and Results F4A versus GA sections use correlation, determination coefficients and regression measures—not the claimed ICCs of 0.85–0.94 or SEMs of 2.7–8.9°. The study also does not establish those figures across functional activities beyond walking. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • All pelvis movements showed good reliability with an absolute error of less than 1.2°.

    “All pelvis movements showed good reliability with an absolute error of less than 1.2° [42].”

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
Buganè, F., Benedetti, M., D’Angeli, V., & Leardini, A.
Affiliations
Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli (IT)
Venue
BioMedical Engineering OnLine
Published
2014
Volume
13
Issue
1
Pages
146
ISSN
1475-925X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1995496505
Cited by
54
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 5
FWCI
1.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • BioMedical Engineering OnLine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico
  • Regione Emilia-Romagna
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Gait Recognition and Analysis
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Lower Extremity Biomechanics and Pathologies
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Balance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Keywords
pelvis kinematics, inertial sensors, level walking, gait analysis, stereophotogrammetry, gyroscope, pelvic tilt angle, pelvic obliquity, pelvic rotation, measurement reliability, within-person variability
MeSH terms
Adult, Biomechanical Phenomena, Electromyography, Equipment Design, Female, Gait, Humans, Male, Pelvis, Sacrum, Reproducibility of Results, Linear Models, Walking, Young Adult, Healthy Volunteers

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