Cited by 129Lower Extremity Biomechanics and PathologiesInertial Sensor and NavigationSports Dynamics and Biomechanics

Validity of inertial sensor based 3D joint kinematics of static and dynamic sport and physiotherapy specific movements

Open access
Teufl, Wolfgang, Miezal, Markus, Taetz, Bertram, Fröhlich, Michael, Bleser, Gabriele·2019·PLOS ONE

Abstract

3D joint kinematics can provide important information about the quality of movements. Optical motion capture systems (OMC) are considered the gold standard in motion analysis. However, in recent years, inertial measurement units (IMU) have become a promising alternative. The aim of this study was to validate IMU-based 3D joint kinematics of the lower extremities during different movements. Twenty-eight healthy subjects participated in this study. They performed bilateral squats (SQ), single-leg squats (SLS) and countermovement jumps (CMJ). The IMU kinematics was calculated using a recently-described sensor-fusion algorithm. A marker based OMC system served as a reference. Only the technical error based on algorithm performance was considered, incorporating OMC data for the calibration, initialization, and a biomechanical model. To evaluate the validity of IMU-based 3D joint kinematics, root mean squared error (RMSE), range of motion error (ROME), Bland-Altman (BA) analysis as well as the coefficient of multiple correlation (CMC) were calculated. The evaluation was twofold. First, the IMU data was compared to OMC data based on marker clusters; and, second based on skin markers attached to anatomical landmarks. The first evaluation revealed means for RMSE and ROME for all joints and tasks below 3°. The more dynamic task, CMJ, revealed error measures approximately 1° higher than the remaining tasks. Mean CMC values ranged from 0.77 to 1 over all joint angles and all tasks. The second evaluation showed an increase in the RMSE of 2.28°- 2.58° on average for all joints and tasks. Hip flexion revealed the highest average RMSE in all tasks (4.87°- 8.27°). The present study revealed a valid IMU-based approach for the measurement of 3D joint kinematics in functional movements of varying demands. The high validity of the results encourages further development and the extension of the present approach into clinical settings.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0213064

Cites

55 of 55 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?

  • In variables like head angle or knee in the frontal plane, IMUs represent a more robust alternative, as they provide high-frequency, three-dimensional orientation data that is independent of camera position and field of view.

    “In variables like head angle or knee in the frontal plane IMUs represent a more robust alternative [60,61,62], as they provide high-frequency, three-dimensional orientation data that is independent of camera position and field of view.”

    From Intra-Rater and Test–Retest Reliability of Kinovea for the Kinematic Analysis of Squatting in Healthy Active Women (2026) · cites this paper as [61]

    The Abstract and Discussion §4.1 support IMUs as a promising alternative for measuring 3D lower-extremity kinematics, including frontal-plane knee angles. But the study did not assess head angles or establish greater robustness due to independence from camera position or field of view. Methods §2.1 says both systems recorded at 60 Hz and that IMU calibration and initialization incorporated optical-motion-capture data. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [48]Fiorentino NM, Atkins PR, Kutschke MJ, Goebel JM, Foreman KB, Anderson AE. Soft tissue artifact causes significant errors in the calculation of joint angles and range of motion at the hip. Gait Posture. 2017; 55: 184– 190. 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2017.03.033 28475981 PMC9840870 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Teufl, W., Miezal, M., Taetz, B., Fröhlich, M., & Bleser, G.
Affiliations
University of Kaiserslautern (DE)
Corresponding author
Teufl, Wolfgang
Venue
PLOS ONE
Published
2019-02-28
Volume
14
Issue
2
Pages
e0213064
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2918167402
Cited by
129
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 4
FWCI
5.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (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)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Publication Server of Kaiserslautern University of Technology (Kaiserslautern University of Technology) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (16SV7115, 03IHS075B)
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 measurement unit, 3D joint kinematics, sensor fusion, lower extremity, squatting, single-leg squat, countermovement jump, optical motion capture, measurement validity, hip flexion, dynamic movement, physiotherapy
MeSH terms
Adult, Algorithms, Biomechanical Phenomena, Female, Humans, Joints, Male, Models, Biological, Movement, Sports, Sports Medicine, Range of Motion, Articular, Imaging, Three-Dimensional, Physical Therapy Modalities, Young Adult, Fiducial Markers

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