Cited by 4Lower Extremity Biomechanics and PathologiesKnee injuries and reconstruction techniquesSports Dynamics and Biomechanics

Remote assessment of pelvic kinematics during single leg squat using smartphone sensors: Between-day reliability and identification of acute changes in motor performance

Open access
Devecchi, Valter, Saunders, Michelle, Galaiya, Sajni, Shaw, Millie, Gallina, Alessio·2023·PLOS ONE

Abstract

The biomechanical assessment of pelvic kinematics during a single leg squat (SLS) commonly relies on expensive equipment, which precludes its wider implementation in ecological settings. Smartphone sensors could represent an effective solution to objectively quantify pelvic kinematics remotely, but their measure properties need to be evaluated before advocating their use in practice. This study aimed to assess whether measures of pelvic kinematics collected remotely using smartphones during SLS are repeatable between days, and if changes in pelvic kinematics can be identified during an endurance task. Thirty-three healthy young adults were tested remotely on two different days using their own smartphones placed on the lumbosacral region. Pelvic orientation and acceleration were collected during three sets of seven SLS and an endurance task of twenty consecutive SLS. The intersession reliability was assessed using Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC 2,k), Standard Error of Measurement, and Minimal Detectable Change. T-tests were used to identify pelvic kinematics changes during the endurance task and to assess between-day bias. Measures of pelvic orientation and frequency features of the acceleration signals showed good to excellent reliability (multiple ICC 2,k ≥ 0.79), and a shift of the power spectrum to lower frequencies on the second day (multiple p<0.05). The endurance task resulted in larger contralateral pelvic drop and rotation (multiple p<0.05) and increased spectral entropy (multiple p<0.05). Our findings demonstrate that reliable measures of pelvic kinematics can be obtained remotely using participants’ smartphones during SLS. Smartphone sensors can also identify changes in motor control, such as contralateral pelvic drop during an endurance task.

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.0288760

Cites

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 [52]

    The Results (Between day reliability, Table 3; page unavailable) report good between-day reliability for smartphone measurements of pelvic orientation during single-leg squats. They do not report a head-to-head comparison with an optoelectronic system, and the pelvic-orientation ICCs (0.79–0.91) and SEMs (1.50–4.01°) do not match the claimed ranges. (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.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 30 · Cited by 4

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [22]Portney LG. Foundations of clinical research: applications to evidence-based practice. Fourth edition. Philadelphia: F.A. Davis; 2020.

Authors
Devecchi, V., Saunders, M., Galaiya, S., Shaw, M., & Gallina, A.
Affiliations
University of Birmingham (GB)
Corresponding author
Gallina, Alessio
Venue
PLOS ONE
Published
2023-11-22
Volume
18
Issue
11
Pages
e0288760
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4388894459
Cited by
4
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1
FWCI
0.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Lower Extremity Biomechanics and Pathologies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Knee injuries and reconstruction techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Sports Dynamics and Biomechanics
Keywords
pelvic kinematics, single-leg squat, smartphone sensors, inter-day reliability, pelvic rotation, spectral entropy, motor control, minimal detectable change
MeSH terms
Smartphone, Biomechanical Phenomena, Humans, Leg, Posture, Reproducibility of Results, Young Adult

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