Cited by 88Lower Extremity Biomechanics and PathologiesContext-Aware Activity Recognition SystemsBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention

A portable system for collecting anatomical joint angles during stair ascent: A comparison with an optical tracking device

Open access
Bergmann, Jeroen HM, Mayagoitia, Ruth E, Smith, Ian CH·2009·Dynamic Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Assessments of stair climbing in real-life situations using an optical tracking system are lacking, as it is difficult to adapt the system for use in and around full flights of stairs. Alternatively, a portable system that consists of inertial measurement units (IMUs) can be used to collect anatomical joint angles during stair ascent. The purpose of this study was to compare the anatomical joint angles obtained by IMUs to those calculated from position data of an optical tracking device. METHODS: Anatomical joint angles of the thigh, knee and ankle, obtained using IMUs and an optical tracking device, were compared for fourteen healthy subjects. Joint kinematics obtained with the two measurement devices were evaluated by calculating the root mean square error (RMSE) and by calculating a two-tailed Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient (r) between the two signals. RESULTS: Strong mean correlations (range 0.93 to 0.99) were found for the angles between the two measurement devices, as well as an average root mean square error (RMSE) of 4 degrees over all the joint angles, showing that the IMUs are a satisfactory system for measuring anatomical joint angles. CONCLUSION: These highly portable body-worn inertial sensors can be used by clinicians and researchers alike, to accurately collect data during stair climbing in complex real-life situations.

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 · 10.1186/1476-5918-8-3

Cites

30 of 30 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?

  • Errors reported for camera-based motion capture systems varied across movement planes and joints, similar to M/IMUs.

    “Interestingly, and similar to M/IMUs, errors reported for camera-based motion capture systems varied across movement planes and joints.”
  • Several studies have questioned the validity and accuracy of camera-based motion capture systems for certain joints and for complex movements.

    “It is important to note here that, recently, several studies have questioned the validity and accuracy of camera-based motion capture systems for certain joints and for complex movements [46,54].”
  • Errors ranging from 5 to 10° when compared to goniometer, inclinometer, and radiostereometric measurements have been evidenced for camera-based motion capture systems, the same error range as M/IMU systems.

    “Indeed, errors ranging from 5 to 10° when compared to goniometer, inclinometer, and radiostereometric measurements have been evidenced (same error range as M/IMU systems).”

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
Bergmann, J. H., Mayagoitia, R. E., & Smith, I. C.
Affiliations
King's College London (GB)
Corresponding author
Bergmann, Jeroen HM
Venue
Dynamic Medicine
Published
2009-04-23
Volume
8
Issue
1
Pages
3-3
ISSN
1476-5918 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2129931099
Cited by
88
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 5
FWCI
2.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Dynamic Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • King's College London
  • Medical Research Council
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
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Balance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Keywords
stair climbing, inertial measurement unit, joint kinematics, wearable sensors, instrument comparison

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