Cited by 65Inertial Sensor and NavigationContext-Aware Activity Recognition SystemsBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention

Inertial measurement systems for segments and joints kinematics assessment: towards an understanding of the variations in sensors accuracy

Open access
Lebel, Karina, Boissy, Patrick, Nguyen, Hung, Duval, Christian·2017·BioMedical Engineering OnLine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Joints kinematics assessment based on inertial measurement systems, which include attitude and heading reference system (AHRS), are quickly gaining in popularity for research and clinical applications. The variety of the tasks and contexts they are used in require a deep understanding of the AHRS accuracy for optimal data interpretation. However, published accuracy studies on AHRS are mostly limited to a single task measured on a limited number of segments and participants. This study assessed AHRS sensors kinematics accuracy at multiple segments and joints through a variety of tasks not only to characterize the system's accuracy in these specific conditions, but also to extrapolate the accuracy results to a broader range of conditions using the characteristics of the movements (i.e. velocity and type of motion). Twenty asymptomatic adults ([Formula: see text] = 49.9) performed multiple 5 m timed up and go. Participants' head, upper trunk, pelvis, thigh, shank and foot were simultaneously tracked using AHRS and an optical motion capture system (gold standard). Each trial was segmented into basic tasks (sit-to-stand, walk, turn). RESULTS: At segment level, results revealed a mean root-mean-squared-difference [Formula: see text] varying between 1.1° and 5.5° according to the segment tracked and the task performed, with a good to excellent agreement between the systems. Relative sensor kinematics accuracy (i.e. joint) varied between 1.6° and 13.6° over the same tasks. On a global scheme, analysis of the effect of velocity on sensor kinematics accuracy showed that AHRS are better adapted to motions performed between 50°/s and 75°/s (roughly thigh and shank while walking). CONCLUSION: Results confirmed that pairing of modules to obtain joint kinematics affects the accuracy compared to segment kinematics. Overall, AHRS are a suitable solution for clinical evaluation of biomechanics under the multi-segment tasks performed although the variation in accuracy should be taken into consideration when judging the clinical meaningfulness of the observed changes.

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/s12938-017-0347-6

Cites

49 of 49 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?

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
Lebel, K., Boissy, P., Nguyen, H., & Duval, C.
Affiliations
  • Université de Sherbrooke (CA)
  • Université du Québec à Montréal (CA)
Corresponding author
Boissy, Patrick
Venue
BioMedical Engineering OnLine
Published
2017-05-15
Volume
16
Issue
1
Pages
56-56
ISSN
1475-925X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2614348207
Cited by
65
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 1
FWCI
7.80
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)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Institute of Aging
  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research
  • Fonds de Recherche du Québec - Santé
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Aerospace Engineering › Inertial Sensor and Navigation
  • 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
inertial measurement unit, attitude and heading reference system, joint kinematics, sensor accuracy, Timed Up and Go test, sit-to-stand, gait, movement speed, optical motion capture, wearable sensors
MeSH terms
Acceleration, Aged, Algorithms, Computer Simulation, Equipment Design, Female, Humans, Joints, Male, Models, Biological, Sensitivity and Specificity, Reproducibility of Results, Range of Motion, Articular, Equipment Failure Analysis, Actigraphy, Accelerometry

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