Upper Limb Kinematics Using Inertial and Magnetic Sensors: Comparison of Sensor-to-Segment Calibrations
Open accessAbstract
Magneto-Inertial Measurement Unit sensors (MIMU) display high potential for the quantitative evaluation of upper limb kinematics, as they allow monitoring ambulatory measurements. The sensor-to-segment calibration step, consisting of establishing the relation between MIMU sensors and human segments, plays an important role in the global accuracy of joint angles. The aim of this study was to compare sensor-to-segment calibrations for the MIMU-based estimation of wrist, elbow, and shoulder joint angles, by examining trueness ("close to the reference") and precision (reproducibility) validity criteria. Ten subjects performed five sessions with three different operators. Three classes of calibrations were studied: segment axes equal to technical MIMU axes (TECH), segment axes generated during a static pose (STATIC), and those generated during functional movements (FUNCT). The calibrations were compared during the maximal uniaxial movements of each joint, plus an extra multi-joint movement. Generally, joint angles presented good trueness and very good precision in the range 5°-10°. Only small discrepancy between calibrations was highlighted, with the exception of a few cases. The very good overall accuracy (trueness and precision) of MIMU-based joint angle data seems to be more dependent on the level of rigor of the experimental procedure (operator training) than on the choice of calibration itself.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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?
The majority of studies reported r and RMSE for validity and ICC or CMC for reliability.
“The majority of the studies reported r and RMSE for validity (only one article used m-estimators) and ICC or CMC for reliability [28].”
From Validity and Reliability of Wearable Sensors for Joint Angle Estimation: A Systematic Review (2019) · cites this paper as [28]
Wrist RMSE and correlation coefficients varied from 2.2 to 30° and 0.62 to 0.99, showing fair to good validity.
“RMSE and correlation coefficients varied respectively from 2.2 to 30° and from 0.62 to 0.99, showing fair to good validity [28,32,33,35,37,43].”
From Validity and Reliability of Wearable Sensors for Joint Angle Estimation: A Systematic Review (2019) · cites this paper as [28]
Elbow RMSE and correlation coefficient results ranged from 0.2 to 30.6° and 0.68 to 0.99, showing good to excellent validity.
“RMSE and correlation coefficient results range from 0.2 to 30.6° and 0.68 to 0.99, respectively, showing good to excellent validity [28,31,32,33,34,35,37,39,43,45].”
From Validity and Reliability of Wearable Sensors for Joint Angle Estimation: A Systematic Review (2019) · cites this paper as [28]
Shoulder SEM and ICC for inter-rater reliability ranged from 4.2 to 7.8° and 0.71 to 0.99.
“SEM and ICC for inter-raterreliability ranged respectively from 4.2 to 7.8° and 0.71 to 0.99 [28,66].”
From Validity and Reliability of Wearable Sensors for Joint Angle Estimation: A Systematic Review (2019) · cites this paper as [28]
For elbow reliability, one study showed excellent reliability in every movement direction (CMC ≥0.9) and the other presented poor to good reliability (ICC = 0.2 to 0.77).
“One study showed excellent reliability in every movement direction (CMC ≥ 0.9) and the other presented poor to good reliability (ICC = 0.2 to 0.77) [28,66].”
From Validity and Reliability of Wearable Sensors for Joint Angle Estimation: A Systematic Review (2019) · cites this paper as [28]
Both wrist reliability studies presented good to excellent intra-rater reliability for all joint movements (CMC and ICC 0.79 to 0.96).
“Both studies presented good to excellent intra-rater reliability for all joint movements (CMC and ICC between 0.79 to 0.96) [28,66].”
From Validity and Reliability of Wearable Sensors for Joint Angle Estimation: A Systematic Review (2019) · cites this paper as [28]
Proper calibration (proper alignment of the M/IMU axes with the anatomical segment axes) is an important factor contributing to better reliability, as different calibration protocols may result in substantially different results.
“Proper calibration (proper alignment of the M/IMU axes with the anatomical segment axes) is another important factor contributing to better reliability, as different calibration protocols may result in substantially different results [28].”
From Validity and Reliability of Wearable Sensors for Joint Angle Estimation: A Systematic Review (2019) · cites this paper as [28]
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 45 · Cited by 133
- Authors
- Bouvier, B., Duprey, S., Claudon, L., Dumas, R., & Savescu, A.
- Affiliations
- Lyon 1 Université (FR)
- Institut National de Recherche et de Sécurité (FR)
- Corresponding author
- Bouvier, Brice
- Venue
- Sensors
- Publisher
- MDPI AG
- Published
- 2015-07-31
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 18813-18833
- ISSN
- 1424-8220 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC4570347
- OpenAlex
- W1842486047
- Cited by
- 133
- References
- 45
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 1
- FWCI
- 8.11
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- dx.doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Sensors (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- HAL (submittedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Context-Aware Activity Recognition Systems
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Aerospace Engineering › Inertial Sensor and Navigation
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Muscle activation and electromyography studies
- Keywords
- upper limb kinematics, joint angle estimation, wrist, elbow, shoulder joint, inertial sensors, magnetic sensors, calibration accuracy, operator training, functional movement
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Biomechanical Phenomena, Calibration, Humans, Joints, Magnetics, Male, Posture, Upper Extremity
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
